Politeness definition :

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
Aboubakr Belkaid University - Tlemcen
Faculty of Letters and Languages
Department of Foreign languages
English Section
Politeness Strategies in Requests:
The Case of Elfhoul Speech Community
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Letters and Languages in candidacy
for the Degree of magister in Sociolinguistics
Presented by
Under the Supervision of
Mrs. Nabila Elhadj Said
Dr. Zoubir Dendane
Members of the Jury:
 President: Prof. Abbès Bahous, University of Mostaganem
 Supervisor: Dr. Zoubir Dendane, MC(A), University of Tlemcen.
 Examiner: Dr. Ilham Serir, MC(A), University of Tlemcen.
 Examiner: Dr. Amine Belmekki, (MC(A), University of Tlemcen.
 Examiner: Dr. Noureddine Mouhadjer, MC(B), University of
Tlemcen.
 Expert: Prof. Mohammed Bachir, University of Tlemcen.
Academic Year: 2010-2011
1
Dedications:
To the memory of my father
To my family
To my sweetheart daughter Abir
To my husband
To all those who love me
2
Acknowlegements:
First and foremost, I would like to thank Allah, the Lord Almighty for having
blessed me and given me the courage and ability to finish this work against all the
odds.
I thank my supervisor Dr Zoubir Dendane for his supervision and guidance,
for his valuable discussions and comments on earlier draft of this study and for his
patience, assistance and tenacity throughout.
My special gratitude also goes to the jury members, professor Abbess Bahous,
Dr. Ilham Serir, Dr. Amine Belmekki, Dr. Noureddine Mouhadjer and professor
Mohammed Bachir, who are a gracious and well informed group of intellectuals
who spent their time and energy reading my thesis.
I would also like to thank my family and friends for their continual
encouragement.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to record my debt and gratitude to
my husband, for his never-tiring support and encouragement.
3
CONTENTS
Dedications........................................................................................................
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................
List of acronyms and abbreviations.....................................................................
List of tables......................................................................................................
List of figures......................................................................................................
Abstract............................................................................................................
General introduction..........................................................................................
i
ii
v
vi
vii
viii
1
Chapter one: Literature review on politeness strategies ………………………
1.1. Introduction …………………………..………………….........................
1.2. Definitions……………….………...………..........................
1. 2. 1. Pragmatics…………………….....................................................
1. 2. 2. The speech community…………….………......…..……….……
1.2.3. Face……………………………….……………….……........……
1.2.4. Face-threatening acts…………………………….…….……….…
1. 3. Politeness definitions………………………………………………..…..
1. 4. Approaches to politeness……………………………………………...…..
1.4.1.The social-norm view………………………………………..……
1.4.2. The conversational-maxim view……………….……………….…
1.4.2.1.Gricean maxims…………………………………….…
1.4.2.2. Lakoff's rules of politeness……………………………
1.4.2.3. Leech's model of politeness………...………..…..……
1.4.3. The conversational-contract view………………..………..………
1.4.4. The face saving view…………………………………………...…
1.5. Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies…………….…...………..…..
1.5.1. Bald-on record …………………………………..……………..…
1.5.2. Positive politeness…………………………….………………..…
1.5.3. Negative politeness……………………………………………...…
1.5.4. Off-record……………………………………...……………....……
1.5.5. Do not do the FTA strategy ………………………….……..…...….
1.6. Variables determining politeness strategies…………………..………..…..
1.7. Cross-cultural variation and distribution of politeness strategies……....….
1.8.Criticisms of Brown and Levinson"s model………………………….…….
1.9. Conclusion………………………………………………………….….…..
4
5
5
5
10
11
14
15
18
19
19
19
21
22
24
25
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
Chapter two: Politeness and the request speech act.............................................
2.1.Introduction…………………………………................................................
2.2. Studies on requests......................................................................................
2. 3. Aspects of politeness in Algeria ……………………………….…………
2.4.Politeness and the request speech act ………………….…………..………
2.5. Directness and Indirectness in requests: ……………..…………..………..
2.6. The language situation in Algeria ………………………………..…..……
2.7. Politeness strategies in Algeria: ……………………………….....………..
2.8.Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) ...………..…….
2.9.Taxonomies of Politeness Structures:……………………………..………..
2.10.Conclusion: …………………………………………………….....………
40
41
42
44
52
59
62
64
70
73
76
Chapter three: Data analysis………………………………………..…………..
77
4
3.1. Introduction ……………………………………………...…………...……
3.2. Methodology …………………………………………………..…………..
3.2.1. The sample …………………………………………………...…….
3.2.2. The data collection procedure ……………………………...………
3.3. Analysis of types of requests used …………………………………..…….
3.4. Analysis of politeness strategies used ……………………………………..
3.5.Conclusion ………..…………………………...…..………………...……..
General conclusion:………………………………………………...…………..
Appendix ……………………………………………………………………….
Bibliography:………………………………………………………...…………
5
78
78
78
78
80
96
110
111
115
117
List of acronyms and abbreviations:
CP: the Cooperative Principle.
PP: the Politeness Principle.
MP: model person.
S: speaker.
H: hearer.
FTA: face-threatening act.
D: social distance.
P: power.
R: ranking of imposition.
Wx: weightiness of FTA.
CCP: cross-cultural pragmatics.
6
List of tables
Table 2.3 CCSARP’s Coding Frame..................................................................
Table 3.1: Combination of explanatory variables..............................................
Table 3.2: Request strategies in requests from a friend......................................
Table3.3: Distribution of request strategies between neighbours.......................
Table 3.4:Distribution of request strategies used between brothers...................
Table 3.5: Distribution of request strategies used in situation 2........................
Table 3.6: Distribution of request strategies in situation 3................................
Table 3.7: Request strategies in friend-to-friend interaction ............................
Table 3.8: Requests from a neighbour ...............................................................
Table 3.9: Request strategies used between brothers........................................
Table 3.10 : Request strategies used in requesting the priest ...........................
Table 3.11:Politeness strategies used between friends.......................................
71
80
83
84
85
88
90
92
93
94
95
97
Table 3.12: Politeness strategies between neighbours ......................................
99
Table 3.13: Politeness strategies between brothers ..........................................
100
Table 3.14: Politeness strategies used according to gender................................
102
Table 3.15: Politeness strategies used according to age.....................................
104
Table 3.16: Politeness strategies used between friends......................................
106
Table 3.17: Politeness strategies used between neighbours...............................
107
Table 3.18: Politeness strategies between brothers............................................
108
Table 3.19:Politeness strategies used in requesting the priest............................
109
7
List of figures
Fig. 3.1:Distribution of request strategies used in friend to friend interaction...
Fig. 3.2: Request from a neighbour....................................................................
Fig. 3.3: Request strategies used in requests from a brother.............................
Fig 3.4: Request strategies in situation 2............................................................
Fig 3.5: Request strategies in situation 3............................................................
Fig.3.6: Requests strategies in friend-to-friend interaction................................
Fig. 3.7: Request from a neighbour....................................................................
Fig. 3.8: Request strategies used between brothers............................................
Fig 3.9: Request strategies used among the three categories..............................
Fig. 3.10: Request strategies used in requesting the priest.................................
Fig.3.11: Politeness strategies between friends..................................................
Fig 3.12: Politeness strategies between neighbours...........................................
Fig. 3.13: Politeness strategies between brothers...............................................
Fig. 3.14: Politeness strategies used according to gender.................................
Fig.3.15: Politeness strategies according to age................................................
Fig.3.16: Politeness strategies used between friends.........................................
Fig 3.17: Politeness strategies between neighbours..........................................
Fig 3.18: Politeness strategies between brothers...............................................
Fig 3.19: Politeness strategies used in requesting the priest.............................
8
83
84
86
88
91
92
93
94
95
96
98
99
101
103
105
106
107
108
109
Abstract:
Politeness in requests is a communication strategy the speaker uses to achieve goals,
choosing the level of politeness based on the relative imposition involved in the request.
It is important to use the right level of politeness. If the speaker is not polite enough, the
hearer feels imposed on, but if the speaker is too polite, the utterance may sound sarcastic.
This study is a sociolinguistic investigation into the ways in which Elfhoul Arabic
speakers realize the speech act of request with reference to politeness strategies as
proposed by Brown and Levinson(1978,1987), and request strategies as patterned by
Blum-Kulka (1989).
In this study, sixty participants were asked to respond in their own dialect to five
different situations in which they carried out the speech act of request. The data was
collected using a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) questionnaire.
Results indicate that participants prefer to use indirect strategies and negative
politeness more than other strategies when the social distance, social power and the rank of
imposition are very high between the requester and the requestee. On the other hand, they
employ direct strategies and positive politeness when the interactants are equals in status,
and even when the speaker has a higher status than the hearer to express solidarity.
9
General introduction:
According to many linguists, one of the key elements in Sapir’s understanding
of language is that the real world is built up on the language habits of people as
language is the most important medium through which individuals communicate.
Structuralism, Transformational Generative Grammar and early studies of
language put emphasis on formal and semantic aspects of language and neglected
the socio-cultural aspects which consider the use of language in daily life. However,
philosophers like Searle (1969) and Leech (1983) were able to repair this leak in
earlier paradigms and contributed to the pragmatic approach to language study.
They show that when a person utters a sentence, he is performing a communicative
act, and through this act social functions are performed. From their earliest
childhood, people are taught to be polite, and a very common phrase that mothers
repeat to their kids at home or outside is “Be polite!”, which shows the importance
of politeness in life.
People in all speech communities use “politeness formulas “such as “good
morning”, “thank you”, “bye-bye”. Ferguson (1976:138)1 states that humans have
“innate predispositions to the use of interjections and ritualized exchanges in which
a given formula triggers an automatic response”. Such formulas are just a few
examples in which individuals interact politely. There are several strategies that are
used, varying from one culture to another.
In daily life, people interact with others producing a series of speech acts
among which, requests are apparently the most used to convey one's needs.
Requests, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), are face-threatening acts which
put the whole responsibility on the speaker. Thus, speakers should communicate in
a polite and appropriate way with others using successful linguistic strategies taking
into account the different social factors.
The linguistic politeness phenomenon has been researched from various
perspectives for the last thirty years. It has been a topic of inquiry. Among many
researchers, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) is said to have weight
in this field and has a great influence on politeness research.
1
Quoted in Yamuna Kachru, Larry Smith ed. 2008:41.
10
This dissertation is based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, which
regards politeness phenomena as linguistic strategies in order to redress facethreatening acts. According to them, politeness strategies are based on two kinds of
redressing strategies: positive and negative. It is important to note that ‘politeness
(face want)’ is universal, whatever the societies and cultures, but ‘politeness
strategies’ vary according to different societies and cultures.
Given that speakers of different languages possess different means of
expressing politeness, it is of great importance to investigate the particular
politeness strategies speakers resort to in specific languages as a means to further
our understanding of the social functions of language. Politeness has become an
almost international code that facilitates the interactions between people from
different social and religious backgrounds. Thus, this work presents a study of
politeness strategies in requests in an Algerian speech community, taking Brown
and Levinson’s work as a point of departure.
The speech act of request has aroused the interest of many scholars. This act is
chosen in this study for some reasons:
First, requests are selected to be studied because they are frequently used in
every day's interactions to express people's wants and desires. Moreover, they
require the adoption of politeness strategies for their intrinsic nature.
Second, many research works are interested in comparing speech act use in
different languages and communities, few of them have focused on one language.
Therefore, this work examines politeness strategies in speech act realization in one
speech community.
Finally, there are few works conducted in the Arabic language in general, and
the Algerian context in particular in the field of politeness in requests.
The language variety investigated here is that of Elfhoul, an almost entirely
undocumented rural dialect. Elfhoul is a region situated in the north of Tlemcen
city, near Remchi and Ainyoucef. It is characterized by agriculture and simple life.
More specifically this study addresses the following questions:
1. Do Elfhoul Arabic speakers adopt the same types of politeness strategies in
requests known in the literature (Brown and Levinson’s1978-1987 and Blum-kulka
1989)?
11
2. Does the sex of the addressee affect the kind of strategies?
3. Does the age of the addressee affect the kind of strategies ?
It is hypothesized that, in Elfhoul, speakers follow the five politeness strategies
proposed by Brown and Levinson, depending on the situation and the relationship
between the interlocutors.
Gender and age have a great influence on the use of the strategies; males use
fewer politeness strategies than females. Old and young people do not use the same
strategies.
As data elicitation method, a discourse completion test (DCT) questionnaire,
composed of five written situations and a brief description of the interlocutors’
characteristics (age, sex, and the degree of familiarity between the interlocutors), is
adopted. Sixty subjects participated in this study, including friends and neighbours.
The present work consists of three chapters; the first chapter is devoted to the
literature review that corresponds to the theme and some basic relevant
sociolinguistic concepts. The second chapter deals with some aspects of politeness
in Algeria, and the requesting speech act, its performance and structure.
The last chapter is the practical part as it includes the analysis of the results of
the questionnaire trying to answer the questions.
12
Chapter ONE:
Overview of Politeness Strategies
13
1.1.
Introduction:
The form of politeness might differ from one culture to another and the ways it
is understood are different and the conceptualization of linguistic politeness is rather
vague especially when the technical term of politeness is used in the pragmatic and
sociolinguistic study of socio-communicative verbal interaction.
Linguistic politeness across cultures may not be expressed by a unique lexical
term, but there are specific ways of expressing such a context. Linguistic politeness
could be explained as a universal of human social interaction across cultures. It
would be one factor in which forms of human interaction could be interpreted and
described as instances of politeness and in which terms of linguistic usage in any
language community could be observed and analyzed as helping to construct and
produce politeness. This chapter is devoted to show the different notions related to
politeness phenomenon, namely some sociolinguistic concepts, politeness
definitions and the approaches towards this phenomenon.
1.2. Definitions:
In this section, it is important to identify some definitions that are relevant to
the theme of this study, namely to politeness phenomenon.
1.2.1. Pragmatics:
Developed in the late 1970s, pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics that studies
communication. It is the study of how people interact when using language and it
explains language use in context including the effect that context has on an
utterance, and the goals the speaker intends to reach through the choice of means
of expression.
The word “pragma” is Greek and refers to activity, to do or to act, and if we
want to define the concept technically, it is referred to as the study of language in
use. The American philosopher C. Morris made use of the term in his semiotic
study (1937) in which he found that semiotics consists of three branches in:
syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. Syntactics deals with the rules that govern
14
how words are combined to form phrases and sentences; semantics, the association
between signs and the objects they signify. Morris (1938:6)1 thus gives his famous
definition of pragmatics as “the study of the relation of signs to interpreters”,
considering it as a branch of semiotics (study of signs and symbols) dealing with the
relation between linguistic expressions and those who use them, and a branch of
linguistics dealing with the contexts in which people use language and the
behaviour of speakers and listeners.
As a matter of fact, pragmatics is the study of meaning of words, phrases and
full sentences in a social context, unlike semantics which deals with the meanings
of words that can be found in dictionaries, Pragmatics was labelled as a "wastebasket of linguistics"(Mey,1993:12), but after many years it has advanced from a
wastebasket to a full grown field.
In Crystal's words (1985:240), pragmatics is defined as follows
Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the
choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social
interaction and the effect their use of language has no other participants in the act of
communication.
According to this definition, Crystal tries to explain that in order to achieve a
successful communication between individuals, there should be a repertoire from a
certain code to be selected first, and there should be a respect to social rules that
constrain the way people speak, and at last, these choices should have consequences
on the hearers. The figure below will represent Crystal's definition of pragmatics:
1
Quoted in Mey (1993 :4).
15
Figure1 1.Components of a pragmatic study
Leech (1983:6) defines pragmatics as "the study of meaning in relation to speech
situations"; on the other hand, Blum-Kulka (1997:38) states the following:
In the broadest sense, pragmatics is the study of linguistic communication in context.
Language is the chief means by which people communicate, yet simply knowing the
words and grammar of a language does not ensure successful communication. Words
can mean more – or something other – than what they say. Their interpretation depends
on a multiplicity of factors, including familiarity with the context, intonational cues
and cultural assumptions. The same phrase may have different meanings on different
occasions, and the same intention may be expressed by different linguistic means.
Phenomena like these are the concern of pragmatics.
Blum-kulka here explains broadly what pragmatics deals with; she shows that
pragmatics is more concerned with the meanings that words in fact convey when
they are used, or what meanings the speaker intends to convey in producing certain
utterances. She also makes a distinction between early and contemporary
pragmatics, and according to her early pragmatics research focuses or deals with
isolated utterances and words in contrast to contemporary pragmatics which
analyzes extended sequences in texts.
In contemporary pragmatics, there is a great interest in crosscultural features; it
studies differences between cultures which resulted in another area of research
known as “cross-cultural pragmatics". Among the investigations made in this area is
CCSARP2 (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper,
1989), comparing requests and apologies in eight languages and language varieties.
According to Blum-Kulka (1997: 55), cross-cultural pragmatics uses two
approaches of analysis. According to Leech (1983), these approaches are:
pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. They are defined by Leech (1983:10-11) as
follows:
1
Figure 1 is taken from Yaghoobi (2002 :7).
(CCSARP) began in 1984, is a significant collaborative effort among linguists that aims to empirically
study the speech acts of requests and apologies. The focus of the project is to study speech acts in terms of
intracultural/situational variation, cross-cultural variation, and individual variation (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain,
1984).
2
16
Socio-pragmatics is the sociological interface of pragmatics. … The term
pragmalinguistics, on the other hand, can be applied to the study of the more
linguistic end of pragmatics – where we consider the particular resources which a
given language provides for conveying particular illocutions.
Thus, from this distinction, it is understood that pragmalinguistics examines the
linguistic manifestations in a given language that convey pragmatic functions,
whereas sociopragmatics focuses on how social and cultural circumstances
influence pragmatic performance.
The ways in which politeness is realized in different cultures and the validity of
its universal theory are of interest to many social sciences, in particular
pragmalinguistics, sociolinguistics, sociology, social anthropology and social
psychology (Watts, 2005). The cultural notion is among the important notions that
relate to politeness. As Blum-Kulka (1992:270) claims:
Cultural notions interfere in determining the distinctive features of each of the four
parameters and as a result significantly affect the social understanding of politeness
across societies in the world.
Blum-Kulka assumes that there are four parameters or factors that influence the
understanding of the notion of politeness: social motivations, expressive modes,
social differentials and social meanings. She defined the four parameters: Social
motivation for politeness is the need to maintain face; the expressive modes refer to
the wide range of linguistic expressions or forms existing in any language to realize
politeness. “Social differentials” is a term referring to such factors as social
distance, power and degree to which speech acts constitute an imposition on the
addressee.
According to Blum-Kulka, culture is a self-evident entity. And according to Watts
(2003:78), it is "an objective entity that can be used to explain politeness or
anything else for that matter”.
Cross-cultural work includes the ways in which two or more cultures differ in
their realization of politeness, and as it has been mentioned, politeness is a culture
17
specific convention; what is considered polite in a culture may not be considered so
in other cultures.
Cross-cultural studies are interested in investigating the distinctiveness of
cultures and languages. Cross-cultural pragmatic studies whether the non native
speakers differ from native speakers in the use of the different strategies and
linguistic forms used to convey polite behaviour; they also make comparative
studies of different communities. The interpretation of meanings the speaker wants
to convey using particular words is often influenced by the context. In pragmatics,
two types of context can be differentiated: linguistic context and physical context.
Linguistic context, sometimes called co-text, is the linguistic environment in which
a word is used within a text, i.e., the words or sentences coming before and after it.
The physical context is the location of a given word, the situation in which it is
used, as well as timing.
All in all, pragmatics is interested in the study of the speaker’s meaning, not in
the grammatical or the phonetic form of utterances, and the influence a given
context can have on the message. As politeness is an aspect of pragmatics, the
present study is intended to make a contribution to this field by focusing on the
pragmatic characteristics of an Arabic speech community. Let us consider how a
speech community has been defined by scholars.
1.2.2. The speech community:
Questions on the utility of the concept of speech community have existed since
1933 when Leonard Bloomfield (1933:29)1 wrote: “A group of people who use the
same set of speech signals is a speech-community.” This definition considers a
speech community as a social group with one nation and one language.
It was not until 1960s that the adoption of the concept “speech community” in
linguistic analysis emerged and became a key concept in Sociolinguistics. For
general linguistics, a speech community refers to any group of people that speak the
same language. Sociolinguists, however, find it very important to focus on the
language practices of a group of people who do in fact have the opportunity to
1
Quoted in Duranti ed. 2006:6.
18
interact and share not just a single language but a repertoire of languages or
varieties. As Spolsky (1998:25)1 puts it:
There is no theoretical limitation on the location and size of a speech community,
which is in practice defined by its sharing a set of language varieties (its repertoire) and
a set of norms for using them.
Among the sociolinguists who have worked on speech communities, William
Labov and Gumperz are included. Gumperz (1968:114)2 defines the speech
community as:
…any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a
shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant
differences in language usage.
Here, John Gumperz also revived the concept considering it as a social construct,
and instead of focusing on a one shared language or on the homogeneity of the
speech community, he put emphasis on the notion of consistent, predictable
interactions and contact is necessary for a speech community to exist.
Labov’s concept of speech community (1972:120-1), which has undoubtedly
been the most influential one, is as follows:
The speech community is defined by … participation in a set of shared norms …
[which] may be observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour, and [in] the
uniformity of abstract patterns of variation.
In fact, Labov’s definition was the first to match the emphasis on linguistic
production with a focus on perception and social evaluation.
In the light of these definitions, it is necessary to mention the different types of
speech communities that can be observed in the Algerian society in which there
exist various types of communities distributed according to geographical
dimensions and the varieties used. The speech community we are concerned with in
this research is situated in a rural area with a Bedouin dialect.
1
2
In Paltridge 2006 :27.
In Dendane (2007 :32).
19
So the notion of speech community is used as a tool to define a unit of analysis
within which to analyze language variation and change. In this work, the focus is on
how to maintain face in an Algerian speech community. Face is another term that
has to be identified in this study.
1.2.3. Face:
Face, a fundamental concept in sociolinguistics, has been introduced by the
sociologist Erving Goffman in his article “On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual
Elements of Social Interaction" and in his 1967 book: Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face-to-Face Behavior. According to Goffman, face is a mask that changes
depending on the audience and the variety of social interaction. People strive to
maintain the face they have created in social situations. They are emotionally
attached to their faces, so they feel good when their faces are maintained; loss of
face results in emotional pain, so in social interactions people cooperate by using
politeness strategies to maintain each others' faces. Face is an important cultural
concept in social life; it is the social standing of a person that refers to the identity
or image each person wants to claim in interactions and face-work includes the set
of actions that are taken by persons to maintain face.
Indeed, the term “face” is of Chinese roots as Ho1 (1975:867) states: "The
concept of face is, of course, Chinese in origin", in many other languages the term is
often used metaphorically to mean prestige; honor; reputation, and respect.
The concept of face is a very important aspect of Arabic culture, particularly
in Algeria; it involves the tendency to avoid embarrassing situations no matter what
the costs are. To save face, people will hide the truth, they will lie or they will not
admit that someone is wrong.
The Arabic culture seeks to avoid any pain or conflict. A concept called "save
face" is a way to solve conflicts and avoid embarrassing or discomforting the parties
involved. Saving someone's face or dignity involves holding one's reactions to give
the other party a way to exit the situation with minimal discomfort or harm to their
dignity.
1
The first Asian to serve as the President of the International Council of Psychologists.
20
It involves compromise, patience, and sometimes looking the other way to allow
things to get back to normal. The "save face" concept is looked at as a behaviour
of high quality ethics and manners. The Arabian culture encourages people to act
humbly and with sensitivity to a person's dignity, especially when that person's
dignity and self respect is endangered. Algerians have often been considered as a
community living with a conflict-avoidance culture. Their communication
behaviours seem to have been guided by the common belief among participants to
save each other’s dignity face. In fact, many Algerians are so sensitive to saving and
losing face that they consider it a very serious matter. Thus, two frequent
expressions are to be adopted in this Arabic society:   and
 , the former is positive, it is used as a politeness formula to
mean “ May God bless you”, and it is also said that someone 
 “he made us feel proud” when a person has behaved appropriately or
done a good thing, or it is said by parents when their children succeed in their
studies. So, it is noticed that face is not individual but collective i.e, the person’s
behaviour does not concern only himself or herself but the whole family. The latter
  is used as an insult to someone who did something wrong, it
may be translated into English as “may your face become yellow” but the meaning
is “God disgrace you”.
It appears that the concept of “face” and “politeness” in Algeria has a great
role. If a person behaves in a manner which does not suit the norms of his/her
group/community, a very common phrase is to be uttered:  
 , literally meaning “he has not got face that is shameful”.
The term face is defined by Goffman (1955:213) as:
The positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others
assume he has taken during a particular contact.
Face then reflects the image of persons and represents the respect which a
person can claim for himself from others. Brown and Levinson (1978:66) have also
insisted on integrating the concept of “face” in politeness, thus they have defined it
as follows:
21
Face is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, […] so
something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced,
and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and
assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation
being based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
Goffman (1955) perceived that face became a necessity of social interaction
between persons. He considers face maintenance as a condition of interaction.
Indeed, face is a social phenomenon that occurs in the presence of two or more
interactants in a conversation and which proves to be an effective way to establish
good relationships that will benefit both sides. Faces can be damaged in various
ways. For that reason, face maintenance is an important aspect of social interaction
in the realization of speech acts which are used in everyday interactions. So, let us
look at the concept of “face-threatening act”.
1.2.4. Face-Threatening Acts:
A Face-Threatening Act (FTA) is a threat to a person’s face. According to
Brown and Levinson (1987), face-threatening acts may threaten either the speaker's
face or the hearer's face, and they may threaten either positive face or negative face.
They generally require a mitigating statement or softening or some verbal repair.
Politeness is not only a set of linguistic strategies used by individuals in
particular interactions, but it is to judge an individual’s linguistic habits, and thus it
is a general way of behaving. Thus politeness should be seen as a set of strategies or
verbal habits which someone sets as a norm for themselves or which others judge as
the norm for them ; as well as a socially constructed norm or rule within a
particular speech community . Holmes (1995:5)1 talks about polite people as those
who:
avoid obvious face-threatening acts…they generally attempt to reduce the threat of
unavoidable face threatening acts such as requests or warnings by softening them, or
1
Quoted in Ahmad Alfattah (2010 :152).
22
expressing them indirectly; and they use polite utterances such as greetings and
compliments where possible
Face Threatening Acts can be differentiated according to whether they threaten
positive or negative face and whether they threaten the face of addressee or speaker.
FTAs that put the positive face in danger are those acts that harm an interlocutor’s
attempts to maintain a positive self-image. Therefore, acts that threaten positive
face-wants include criticism, disagreement, and the mention of taboo topics; threats
to the speaker’s positive face include acts such as self-humiliation and apologies.
FTAs that threaten negative face are those acts that may interfere in an
interlocutor’s freedom of action or freedom of imposition. Accordingly, acts that
threaten an addressee’s negative face include requests, advice and statements of
envy; acts that threaten a speaker’s negative face include making promises
unwillingly, expressing thanks, and accepting an apology.
Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that these classifications of FTAs are not
usually respected since some FTAs may challenge both the positive and negative
faces of individuals (e.g complaints and threats to an addressee) and similarly, some
FTAs can harm both the speaker and the addressee. Brown and Levinson claim that
three factors can affect the performance of an act: social distance, power and the
imposition. In this respect, Wolfson (1989: 67)1 states:
In deciding how much to take another person’s feelings into account, we have three
factors to consider. First, people are usually more polite to others when they are of
higher status or perceived of as being powerful; second, people are generally more
polite to others who are socially distant; and third, we are usually more polite in
relation to the gravity of the threat we are about to make to others’ face.
Degree of Social Distance: it refers to how close the interlocutors are (e.g., distant,
semi-close, or close).
Power: it refers to the power relationship between the person making the act and
the person receiving the act.
Rank of Imposition: it refers to how big the act is.
1
Outed in Ali salmani-Nodoushan (1995 :4-5)
23
1.3. Politeness definitions:
Asking indirect questions and requests, apologizing, using appropriate titles or
names for others in communication or using the right language, all of this is
considered as polite behavior. To explain what politeness means is really difficult
and it still lacks a uniform definition because being polite differs from one culture
to another and a great confusion occurs between its universality and language
specificity. Although many attempts and frameworks were made in order to
approach the concept, there is still no unified direction in the field and as Meier
(1995a:.345) states, there is a “disconcerting amount of divergence and lack of
clarity concerning the meaning of politeness”. Held (1992:31) also describes this
linguistic phenomenon as a “definitionally fuzzy and empirically difficult area”.
On the other hand, there is such lack of
agreement among researchers,
considering the complex nature of politeness due to the variety of ways in which the
term has been treated as: formality, as deference, as indirectness, as appropriateness,
as etiquette ,as tact and so on. Inspite of this, many proposals have been made,
involving the global view of politeness as appropriate language usage and other
linguistic frameworks that espouse it to the notion of “face” (Brown and Levinson,
1987).
The etymology was described by Sifianou (1992:81)1 as follows:
Polite is derived from the Latin politus, past participle of “polire” meaning “to
smooth”. Thus ,”polite” originally meant “smoothed” ,”polished” ,and subsequently
“refined”,” cultivated” ,”well bred” ,and so on ,when referring to people ,and
“courteous”, ”urban”, etc. when referring to manners.
This description associates politeness with behaviour of the upper classes, the
urban life and civilized manners, and all these terms refer to forms of social
behaviour.
As mentioned before, one of the important ways of approaching the
phenomenon is from social appropriateness. In the Longman dictionary of
1
Cited in Miriam A.Locher (2004:89).
24
contemporary English, politeness is defined as “having or showing good manners,
consideration for others, and /or correct social behaviour.”
The English Theophrastus: or “the manners of the age” offers a definition of the
term which links up with notions of appropriate verbal behaviour, conflict
avoidance and face threatening:
Politeness may be defined a dextrous management of our Words and Actions whereby
men (sic!) make other people have a better opinion of us and themselves.(1991:108)1.
Most scholars agree that politeness is used to avoid conflicts. Lakoff (1975:64)
sees politeness as those forms of behaviour which have been “developed in societies
in order to reduce friction in personal interaction “, thus indirectly claiming
politeness universality .He also speaks about appropriateness saying: “to be polite is
saying the socially correct thing” (1975:53). Similarly Leech (1983:104) defines
politeness as those forms of behaviour which are aimed at the establishment and
maintenance of comity, i.e, the ability of participants to engage in interaction in a
comfortable and harmonious atmosphere.
Another positive definition that expresses restraining people’s feelings and
avoiding conflicts is offered by Hill et al. (1986:349): “politeness is one of the
constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others’ feelings,
establish levels of mutual comfort, and promotes rapport”. Hill here considers
politeness as a constraint on our behaviour, in order to reduce friction and enhance
harmony.
For Adegbija (1989:58)2, politeness is defined as:
a property associated with a communicative situation by virtue of which a person
speaks or behaves in a way that is socially and culturally acceptable and pleasant to the
hearer..
Most of the scholars consider politeness as a behaviour without friction, indeed,
to be polite requires avoiding any trouble or conflict. It is to make communication
occurring very smoothly and in a comfortable atmosphere. Politeness is an
1
Quoted in Watts, Ide and Ehlich (2005 :45).
2 Quoted in Jucker.H, Fritz. G, Lebsanft.F. (1999:140).
25
important rule in society, it shows that the others are respected and their feelings are
considered too.
In contrast, Fraser and Nolen (1981:96) propose that politeness is the result of a
conversational contract entered into by the participants in order to maintain sociocommunicative verbal interaction conflict- free. They said:
…In general, speakers operate within the terms of the conversational contract and, in
doing so, act in a way which we call polite .To be polite is to abide by the rules of the
relationship .A speaker becomes impolite just in cases where he violates one or more of
the contractual terms.
This definition describes politeness as a contract signed by interactants, if one
interactant tends not to be polite, he or she will break down the contract.
Expressing politeness can be done linguistically and non-linguistically, and it is
showing appreciation towards what the addressee has done or said.
The notion of politeness has been also treated or defined in accordance to face.
Brown and Levinson (1987) define the theme as maintaining hearer’s face, which is
explained by Goffman (1967:p.12-13) as:
the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others
assume he has taken during a particular contact; not a specific identity but successful
presentation of any identity.
Thus, it is viewed as a complex system for softening face threatening acts. Then,
face is the underlying construct of politeness, for example your teacher is older than
you, it is polite to give him face. Similarly Mills (2003:6) relates politeness to face
stating that:
Politeness is the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by
certain face threatening acts toward another.
This definition means that being polite is to attempt to save face for another, and not
to hurt him. Politeness is, of course, a set of social skills whose goal is to ensure that
everyone feels relaxed in a social interaction. The fact that politeness is a complex
concept makes it difficult to find an absolute and unique definition of the term.
26
1.4. Approaches to Politeness:
Since the late 1970’s, various politeness theories have been proposed within
pragmatics to explain interactional conventions of language use both universal and
culture- specific. Fraser (1990) proposed four current theories to the phenomenon:
the social-norm view; the conversational-maxim view; the face-saving view; and
the conversational-contract view.
1.4.1. The Social-norm View:
The social-norm view is correlated with the historical understanding of
politeness and is considered as the first approach to politeness according to Fraser
(1990:220).This perspective dictates that each society follows or has a set of social
norms and rules that prescribe people's behaviour or their thoughts. If an individual
acts taking into account these rules, the act will be evaluated positively, i.e, as
polite. But if it runs against the social norms prescribed in a society, the act will be
evaluated negatively or impolite. Thus, this view includes manners and etiquette
that everyone should follow.
On the other hand, the social-norm view was also correlated with "first-order
politeness" which is suggested by Watts et al. (1992a). First-order politeness
explains the way politeness is perceived in a given social group.
1.4.2. The conversational- maxim view:
The second approach to politeness is the conversational-maxim view which
relies on the framework of Grice (1975) and his Cooperative Principle (CP). This
principle was also adopted by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983).
1.4.2.1. Gricean Maxims:
One of the most important contributions to the study of pragmatics has been that
of Grice’s (1975) Co-operative Principle (CP) and his Maxims of Conversation. The
philosopher Paul Grice proposed four conversation Maxims which are a way of
explaining the link between utterances and what is understood from them. The
27
Maxims are based on his cooperative principle, which states the following: ‘Make
your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged,’ Grice (1975:45), and it is called cooperative because listeners and
speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be
understood in a particular way. The principle describes how effective
communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations and using
the four Maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner.
Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a
cooperative principle which describes how people interact with one another, i.e, and
the principle is intended as a description of how people normally behave in
conversation.
*Maxim of Quantity: this maxim states the following:
 Make your contribution to the conversation as informative as necessary.
 Do not make your contribution to the conversation more informative than
necessary.
*Maxim of Quality: it states the following:
 Do not say what you believe to be false.
 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
*Maxim of Relevance: it focuses on one notion which is:
Be relevant (i.e., say things related to the current topic of the conversation).
*Maxim of Manner: it states the following:
 Avoid obscurity of expression.
 Avoid ambiguity.
 Be brief (avoid unnecessary wordiness).
 Be orderly.
Grice (1978: 113–114) states the following
:
I have suggested a Cooperative Principle and some subordinate maxims, with regard to
which I have suggested: (i) that they are standardly (though not invariably) observed by
28
participants in a talk exchange; and (ii) that the assumptions required in order to
maintain the supposition that they are being observed (or so far as is possible observed)
either at the level of what is said – or failing that, at the level of what I implicated – are
in systematic correspondence with nonconventional implicata of the conversational
type.
This discussion demonstrates that the cooperative principle and its
conversational maxims carry the assumption that the main purpose of conversation
is the successful exchange of information using maxims. Indeed, Grice’s maxims
are very crucial in formulating polite language and behaviour.
1.4.2.2. Lakoff’s rules of Politeness:
Lakoff (1973) was among the first researchers to adopt Grice’s framework in an
attempt to explain a model of politeness from a pragmatic perspective .Despite the
fact that this author adopted Grice’s framework, she observed that his maxims were
too general, and lacked explicit explanation. She argues that grammar should also
include pragmatic factors and not only grammatical rules stating the following: ‘the
pragmatic component is as much a part of the linguist’s responsibility as is any
other part of grammar’ (1973: 296). Thus, she integrates her own rules of politeness
with Grice’s conversational maxims and proposed two universal rules of pragmatic
competence:
 Be clear
 Be polite, this rule comprises three strategies: (do not impose, give
options, and be friendly).
Lakoff (1973:297-298) states:
…when Clarity conflicts with Politeness, in most cases Politeness supersedes: it is
considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity.
Following Grice, Lakoff suggested that if one wants to succeed in
communication, the message must be conveyed in a clear manner .In her work, she
defined politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate
29
interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all
human interchange” (1990:34).
From her sub-rules one can understand that it has to do with not intruding into
others’ territory, trying to let the others take their own decisions and making the
addressee feel comfortable, so politeness appears to avoid friction and discomfort.
So both Grice and Lakoff have concentrated on the notion of clarity in conversation.
In general, Lakoff’s notion of politeness is viewed as conversation that is
conflict-free with interlocutors being able to satisfy each other’s needs and interests
by means of employing politeness strategies that preserve harmony and cohesion
during social interaction. Later, she developed her theory and reformulated her rules
as follows: formality, deference and camaraderie. Her model is concerned with
respecting the interlocutor’s territory and making him feel good.
1.4.2.3. Leech’s (1983) model of politeness:
Leech (1983) also adopts Grice’s conversational maxims and analyzed
politeness in terms of maxims within a pragmatic framework. Leech attempts to
explain indirectness in interaction regarding politeness as the impetus for conveying
meaning indirectly. He distinguishes between the speech act the speaker wants to
perform and the way the speaker adopts.
Based on the foundation of the Cooperative Principle (CP) and its maxims,
Leech proposed his Politeness Principle (PP) as a necessary complement to the CP.
The function of the PP is “to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly
relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in
the first place” (p.82). Essentially, as Kingwell (1993:395) claims: "Leech's PP
clarifies what is obscured in Grice…" The PP comprises six maxims:
*The Tact Maxim
The tact maxim states: ‘Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to
other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other.’ The first
part of this maxim goes with Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategy of
30
minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness
strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants, and needs:
*The Generosity Maxim
Leech’s Generosity maxim states: ‘Minimize the expression of benefit to self;
maximize the expression of cost to self.’ Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of
generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of
the self.
*The Approbation Maxim
The Approbation maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of beliefs which
express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express
approval of other.' Here, it is preferable to praise others and if not, one tries to give
some sort of minimal response (possibly through the use of euphemisms), or to
remain silent. The first part of the maxim avoids disagreement; the second part
intends to make other people feel good by showing solidarity.
*The Modesty Maxim
The Modesty maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize
the expression of dispraise of self.'
*The Agreement Maxim
The Agreement maxim runs as follows: 'Minimize the expression of
disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement
between self and other.' It is in line with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness
strategies of 'seek agreement' and 'avoid disagreement,' to which they attach great
importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid
disagreement. It is simply observed that they are much more direct in expressing
agreement, rather than disagreement.
*The Sympathy Maxim
The sympathy maxim states: 'minimize antipathy between self and other;
maximize sympathy between self and other.' This includes a small group of speech
acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and expressing condolences - all of
31
which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategy of
attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs.
According to Leech, the CP and the PP interact with each other in
communication; the CP and its maxims are used to explain how an utterance may be
interpreted to convey indirect messages and the PP and its maxims are used to
explain why indirectness is to take place.
On the other hand, a set of pragmatic scales associated with Leech’s maxims are
taken into account to determine the degree of application that is suitable in each
setting or situation:
a. The ‘cost/benefit’ scale, which describes how the action is evaluated by the
speaker to be costly or beneficial either to the speaker or to the addressee.
b. The ‘optionality’ scale, which describes to what extent the action is
Performed at the choice of the addressee.
c. The ‘indirectness’ scale, which describes how much inference, is involved in
the action.
d. The ‘authority’ scale, which describes the degree of distance between the
Speakers considering power over each other.
e. The ‘social distance’ scale, which describes the degree of solidarity
between the participants.
Indeed, Leech’s model has made important contributions to politeness theory.
1.4.3. The Conversational –contract view:
This approach has been put forward by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Nolen
(1981), developed later by Fraser (1990). It adopts the Cooperative Principle of
Grice but it is different from Brown and Levinson's face-saving view. Fraser
(1990:232) explains this view as follows:
We can begin with the recognition that upon entering into a given conversation, each
party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will
32
determine, at least for the preliminary states, what the participants can expect from the
other(s). During the course of time, or because of a change in the context, there is
always the possibility for a renegotiation of the conversational contract: the two parties
may readjust just what rights and what obligations they hold towards each other.
So, Fraser wants to say that the politeness phenomenon represents a contract
signed by speakers and hearers. In interaction this contract should be respected that
is to say every person should know his or her rights and obligations, and each time
the context changes there must be a need to respect these rights and obligations.
This approach was criticized by many researchers who argue that it lacks
clarifications about how the changes of the rights and obligations take place.
Among them, Thomas (1995:177) states that: “Fraser’s model of politeness is very
sketchy compared with that of Leech and Brown and Levinson and it is difficult to
judge how it might operate in practice.”
Thus, it seems that as an approach, the conversational contract view could not be
relied on as a theoretical basis in studies.
1.4.4. The Face-saving View:
One of the major approaches to politeness is put forward Penelope Brown an
anthropologist, and Stephen C. Levinson a linguist (1978). Their theory was
originally published as a book chapter in 1978,and reissued as a book in 1987.It
represents a framework for linking the major dimensions of social interaction with
the ways in which people talk with one other .This model consists of three basic
notions face ,face threatening acts and politeness strategies .Their account of
politeness was based on a comparative study on three unrelated languages and
cultures, namely English ,Tamil(a Dravidian language) and Tzeltal (a language of
the Mayan family of central America). Brown and Levinson noticed many
similarities concerning the linguistic strategies employed by speakers of these
languages, and they observed the same strategies in other languages, which led
them to assume the universality of politeness.
Politeness theory explains how and why individuals try to protect or save face
especially when an embarrassing or shameful situations arise .It clarifies how we
33
manage our own and others’ identities through interaction ,in particular through the
use of politeness strategies .
The way people talk in communicative situations, can be explained by the fact
that everyone has face-wants and the others also have similar wants .Thus whenever
people are performing communicative acts that may threaten a partner face- wants,
they will use linguistic strategies that attempt to respect these wants .Politeness
theory seeks to explain why speakers select the particular facework strategies they
do. That is, it explains why a speaker would use a positive politeness strategy rather
than a negative politeness .Strategy selection will depend on the relative face-threat
of the communicative act of the speaker.
Brown and Levinson (1987) put forward a Model Person (MP) to be central to their
theory. This (MP) is taken as having the properties of rationality, able to reason and
thus satisfy face wants as Brown and Levinson (1987:58) explain:
…All our Model Person (MP) consists in is a willful fluent speaker of a natural
language, further endowed with two special properties – rationality and face. By
‘rationality’ we mean something very specific – the availability to our MP of a
precisely definable mode of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those
ends. By ‘face’ we mean something quite specific again: our MP is endowed with two
particular wants – roughly, the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in
certain respects.
We can say that when two Model Persons interact, cooperation and maintenance of
each one's face should be present in order to realize one's goals in communication.
In fact, Brown and Levinson extended Goffman's notion of face and proposed two
kinds of face: positive and negative face. Positive face represents the desire of an
individual to be appreciated and accepted by others, negative face is the need of an
individual to have freedom to act or behave without being imposed. They claimed
the following concerning the notion of "face":
…Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of ‘face’ which consists of two
specific kinds of desires…: the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions (negative face),
and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face). This is the bare
34
bones of a notion of face which (we argue) is universal, but which in any particular
society we would expect to be the subject of much cultural elaboration. (Brown and
Levinson, 1987: 13).
Thus, here it is observed that Brown and Levinson assume that the desires
associated with face are universal although they argue that they are also culturespecific that is to say they link up to cultural norms and ideas. This claim of
universality was criticized by many other researchers.
Another key concept of face is Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs), these acts threaten
the face wants of speakers.
Thomas (1995: 169) explains face-threatening acts as follows:1
… An illocutionary act has the potential to damage the hearer’s positive face (by, for
example, insulting H or expressing disapproval of something which H holds dear), or
H’s negative face (an order, for example, will impinge upon H’s freedom of action); or
the illocutionary act may potentially damage the speaker’s own positive face (if S has
to admit to having botched a job, for example) or S’s negative face (if S is cornered
into making an offer of help).
Since some acts are threatening to face and require softening, language users try to
develop politeness strategies to reduce face loss that may result from an interaction
that is face-threatening.
Politeness theory as Brown and Levinson stated represents “a tool for describing
the quality of social relationships” (1987:55) .They present a rationalist, universalist
theory of the application of politeness strategies as a major principle of language
use in social interaction. The use of strategies is seen as inherent in face related
communication .They are choices that a speaker can make in choosing language to
reflect a social positioning to the hearer .For example the speaker could choose the
action of deferring to the hearer and realize this action linguistically through his/her
choice of language .this choice is seen as reflecting the social relationship between
1
S stands for speaker, H for hearer.
35
the speaker and the hearer. Through his/her choice of language, the speaker is
positing a social position in relation to the hearer.
All in all, Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory is guided by three
primary assumptions .First, they assume that all individuals are concerned with
maintaining face which has two dimensions: positive and negative .Positive face
includes a person’s need to be liked, appreciated, and admired by select persons.
Negative face assumes a person’s desire to act freely, without constraints or
imposition from others .Both dimensions can not be achieved simultaneously.
Second, politeness theory assumes that human beings are rational and goal
oriented seeking to avoid FTAs at least with respect to face needs .It means that you
have choices and make communicative decisions to achieve your goals, within the
context of maintaining face. Brown and Levinson posit that face management works
best when everyone involved helps to maintain the face of others. .A polite manner
of behavior is expected as both interactants cooperate in maintaining face in
interaction, and such cooperation is predicated on the notion of “mutual
vulnerability of face”. That is both individuals need to cooperate to maintain face.
The final assumption is that some behaviours are face threatening, they are
called face-threatening acts, and they include apologies, compliments, requests,
criticisms and threats.
1.5. Brown and Levinson's politeness Strategies:
In everyday conversation, there are ways to use to get what we want. When we
are with a group of friends, we can say to them, "Go give me a cup of tea!", or
"Shut-up!" However, when we are surrounded by a group of adults in a formal
setting, in which our parents are attending, we must say, "Could you please bring
me a cup of tea, if you don't mind?" and “I'm sorry, I don't mean to disturb you, can
you lend me fifteen dinars”? In different social situations, it is necessary to adjust
our choice of words to fit the occasion. If we reverse the utterances above, it would
seem impolite and unacceptable.
36
The term “politeness strategies” refers to verbal message strategies that
satisfy the hearer’s face. A politeness strategy is used to prevent a violation of the
hearer's face. In order to avoid FTAs or at least minimize a possible threat, speakers
use various strategies.
Politeness strategies vary from language to language and within each society.
At times, the wrong strategies can have disastrous effects. This can occur when
languages are used by non-native speakers. According to many linguists, the
importance of politeness strategies lies in maintaining a social order and (Brown &
Levinson, 2000, xiii) see it as “a precondition of human cooperation”. Lakoff said
that the purpose of politeness is to avoid conflicts (1889:101). Politeness strategies
are learned when the mother tells her child to greet his uncle, or to thank someone
who has, for example, given him sweets. It seems to be very important to stick to
these conventions, which have developed since human beings exist.
Figure 11: Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)
In an interaction, speakers will choose from a set of five strategies to avoid or
mitigate FTAs, described by Brown and Levinson that sum up human "politeness"
behavior: Bald on Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and OffRecord-indirect strategy, and the ultimate strategy is “Do not do the FTA”.
1.5.1.Bald on Record:
This strategy “bald on record” is ranked as the most direct strategy. It refers to
the expression of an act in the most direct way. It requires no effort from the part of
1
Outed in Fukushima (2002 :38).
37
the speaker to reduce the impact of the FTA's. “Bald on record” covers strategies
usually using the imperative form without any redress, and is employed when the
face threat is minimal. Using this strategy, it is likely to shock the persons to be
addressed, embarrass them or make them feel a bit uncomfortable. However, this
type of strategy is commonly found with people who know each other very well,
and are very comfortable in their environment, such as close friends and among
family members.
On record includes: without redressive action, baldly; and with redressive action. To
speak on record without redressive action involves speaking clearly and in a concise
way. As Brown and Levinson (1987:69) state:
… (a) S and H both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended
in the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to H’s face is very small,
as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly in H’s interest and do not require
great sacrifices of S (e.g., ‘Come in’ or ‘Do sit down’); and (c) where S is vastly
superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy H’s face without
losing his own.
From the above excerpt, it is understood that bald-on record strategies are adopted
in the following cases:
 When the act performed demands or requires more efficiency for example in
emergencies.
 When the act is addressed to someone who is well-known or familiar to the
speaker, this is referred to as "weightiness" which is small in this case.
 When the FTA is for the benefit or the interest of the hearer.
 When a difference in power that is to say the powerful interactant will
employ the most direct way.
On the other hand, doing an act with reddressive action will attempt to reduce the
face threat using modifications and additions for example the insertion of the word
"please". Redressive action is also subcategorized into two types which are positive
politeness and negative politeness.
38
1.5.2. Positive Politeness:
The important feature of positive politeness is to share some degree of
familiarity with people. It can be considered as the code or language of intimacy.
It Aims to recover any threats to positive face, it treats the addressee as a
member of an in- group, a friend, a person whose desires and personality traits are
known and liked. It is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the
given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the
distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's
need to be respected (minimize the FTA). Positive politeness is meant to establish a
feeling of solidarity between the speaker and the hearer by choosing from number
of strategies.
Brown and Levinson propose three broad strategies that convey positive
politeness, the first one is claiming common ground with others and it means that
the speaker and the hearer have many things in common, such as the same interests
and attitudes and group membership. Group membership is realized using address
terms like "sister" and "honey". Sharing similar interests includes commenting on
other's appearance and possessions.
The second strategy of positive politeness is linked to cooperation between the
interactants. It is to be aware and interested in the hearer such as taking his opinion.
The third strategy is to accomplish the others wants and desires such as sympathy.
According to (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 103-129)1, these strategies include the
following:
Positive Politeness strategies:
(1) Notice, attend to H2 (his interests, wants, needs, goods)
(2) Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
(3) Intensify interest to H
(4) Use in-group identity markers
1
Qouted in Romanello (2010:25)
39
(5) Seek agreement
(6) Avoid disagreement
(7) Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
(8) Joke
(9) Assert or presuppose S's knowledge of concern for H's wants.
(10) Offer, promise
(11) Be optimistic
(12) Include both S and H in the activity
(13) Give (or ask for) reasons
(14) Assume or assert reciprocity
(15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation
These strategies make the hearer feel appreciated by the speaker, and this can
express solidarity and familiarity between individuals.
1.5.3. Negative Politeness:
Unlike the positive politeness strategies that aim at the realization of solidarity,
Brown and Levinson's negative politeness strategies function to increase the social
distance between interlocutors. It is essentially avoidance-based, it dictates that the
speaker respects the addressee’s negative face and will not interfere with his or her
freedom of action. The main focus for using this strategy is to assume that you may
be imposing on the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these
automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in
the situation.
Brown and Levinson (1987:132-211) identify these strategies as follows:
(1) Be conventionally indirect
(2) Question, hedge
(3) Be pessimistic
(4) Minimize the imposition, Rx
(5) Give deference
(6) Apologize
(7) Impersonalize S and H
(8) State the FTA as a general rule
(9) Nominalize
(10) Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
Here are some examples:
Be indirect:
"I'm looking for a comb."
40
In this situation you are hoping that you will not have to ask directly, so as not to
impose on the hearer. Therefore, by using this indirect strategy, you hope they will
find one for you.
Forgiveness:
"You must forgive me but...."
Minimize imposition:
"I just want to ask you if I could use your pen?"
Pluralize the person responsible:
"We forgot to tell you that you had to accomplish your work this week."
This takes all responsibility off of only you, even if you were the person responsible
for telling this to the hearer.
1.5.4. Off-Record (indirect):
The fourth strategy of Brown and Levinson is the off record by which they
mean that a certain act can be performed in an unclear and indirect way. Off-record
indirect strategies minimize the pressure that is on the speaker by avoiding the
direct FTA, and thus, one becomes free from any imposition. Trying to explain how
off-record strategies help the speaker avoid doing an FTA in the most direct way,
Brown and Levinson (1987) state:
… the actor leaves himself an ‘out’ by providing himself with a number of defensible
interpretations; he cannot be held to have committed himself to just one particular
interpretation of his act. Thus, if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the
responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record and leave it up to the addressee to
decide how to interpret it.
They (Ibid.) further explain that:
…Such off-record utterances are essentially indirect uses of language: to construct an
off-record utterance one says something either more general (contains less information
in the sense that it rules out fewer possible states of affairs) or actually different from
what one means (intends to be understood). In either case, H must make some
inference to recover what was in fact intended.
41
Here are some examples:
Give hints:
"It's cold in here."
Be vague:
"Perhaps someone should have been more responsible."
Be sarcastic, or joking:
"Yeah, he's a real rocket scientist!"
As a matter of fact, these strategies are not universal - they are used more or less
frequently in other cultures. For example, in some eastern societies the off-recordindirect strategy will place on your hearer a social obligation to give you anything
you admire. So speakers learn not to express admiration for expensive and valuable
things in homes that they visit.
In fact, if one thinks of politeness, it is to think of ‘negative politeness’ more
than “positive politeness”, Leech (1983: 133) claims ‘negative politeness’ is a more
‘weighty’ consideration than “positive politeness”.
1.5.5. Do not do the FTA strategy:
Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy is “Don’t do the FTA.” In this strategy,
nothing is said because the risk of face loss is extremely great. It is to remain silent
and not doing the act. But the researchers did not provide any discussion concerning
this strategy. Sifianou (1997:79)1 makes comment on the hierarchy of the strategies
saying that:
Brown and Levinson (1987) regard silence as the ultimate expression of
politeness, although they offer no discussion of it.
As Sifianou notes, Brown and Levinson get rid of the fifth strategy in their
discussion and in this respect they state the following:
… the payoff for the fifth strategic choice, ‘Don’t do the FTA’, is simply that S avoids
offending H at all with this particular FTA. Of course S also fails to achieve his desired
communication, and as there are naturally no interesting linguistic reflexes of this lastditch strategy, we will ignore it in our discussion henceforth. Indeed, this shows that
1
Quoted in Fukushima (2002:223).
42
this strategy is considered as the most polite one since it includes no intention for doing
a face-threatening act.
Furthermore, Sifianou (ibid:67) makes an important point concerning this fifth
strategy, saying that it is inadequate to exclude and separate this one from the other
superstrategies, but it is very important to insert facts of silence under the other
strategies because according to her silence can realize positive, negative and offrecord politeness in order to avoid imposition.
1.6. Variables determining politeness strategies:
Brown and Levinson (1987:74) claim that three factors influence the assessment
of the seriousness of a face-threatening act: the social distance (D) of S and H, the
relative power(P) of S and H and the absolute ranking(R) of imposition in a given
culture.
Using these variables, they suggest a formula to calculate the weightiness of the
act as follows:
Wx= D(S,H)+P(H,S)+Rx, so Wx is the value that measures the weightiness of
the FTA, D is the value that measures the social distance between S and H, P is the
power of the H over S, and Rx is the value that measures the degree of imposition
of the act. These dimensions contribute to the appropriate realization of speech acts,
and help to decide the level of politeness. They refer to power as “hierarchy” and
define P as: “the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own selfevaluation (face) at the expense of S’s plans and self-evaluation.”(ibid:77) .
Concerning the rank of imposition, they define it as: “a culturally and
situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are
considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval.”
(ibid:77). The authors argue that the degree of impositions is related to services,
goods and the speakers rights and obligations, they (ibid.:79) further add that
“…impositions can still situationally vary in value; to ask for a dollar is generally to
ask for more than to ask for a dime, yet to ask for a dime just outside a telephone
booth is less than to ask for a dime for no apparent reason in the middle of the
street.” These factors are culture-specific.
43
1.7. Cross-cultural variation and distribution of politeness strategies:
Brown and Levinson (1987:242) state that their influential universal work can be
considered as a basis for distinct cultural differences in interaction i.e, it clarifies
similarities and differences of cultures in language use. Among the theory’s basics
that show cultural differences are the variables proposed in the framework and the
distribution of the different strategies across a given culture or population.
Brown and Levinson (1987:244-245)1 describe cross –cultural variations in the
form of dimensions as follows:
(i) The general level of Wx in a culture, as determined by the sum of P, D, and R values.
(ii) The extent to which all acts are FTAs, and the particular kinds of acts that are FTAs in a
culture.
(iii) The cultural composition of Wx: the varying values … attached to P, D, and Rx, and the
different sources for their assessment.
(iv) Different modes of assignment of members to the sets of persons whom an actor wants to pay
him positive face, and the extent to which those sets are extended …
(v) The nature and distribution of strategies over the most prominent dyadic relations in a particular
society …
Concerning dimension (i), Brown and Levinson distinguish between positivepoliteness cultures and negative politeness cultures. They describe positivepoliteness cultures as having
a low level of Wx, small impositions; the distance
and the power are never great. Negative politeness-cultures tend to use more polite
strategies which are the negative and the off-record.
From these dimensions, Brown and Levinson suggest a set of four types of
dyads to denote P and D factors. Below is a summary of the dyads and the
distribution of politeness strategies.
Dyad
Features
Politeness Strategies Countries/ Societies
I
The majority of
Bald on record (to
public relations
inferiors)
are dominated by
Negative politeness/
high P relations
off record
India
(to superiors)
II
1
High D relations
High-numbered
Outed in Fukushima (2002:43).
44
Japan; Madagascar;
dominate in
strategies
England
Low D is the
Symmetrical use of
Western U.S.A.
emphasis and P is
bald on record
minimized
Positive politeness
Low P relations
Symmetrical low-
between men;
prevail without
numbered strategies
between woman:
public encounters
III
IV
high D
In an egalitarian society
Table11. Brown and Levinson’s Dyads and Politeness Strategy Distribution
1.8. Criticism of Brown and Levinson’s model:
Although Brown and Levinson’s theory has been considered as influential and
most valid, it could not escape some criticisms. Criticisms are oriented mainly to
the rationality principle, the universality of “face” and the universality of politeness
strategies.
As far as politeness strategies are concerned, Wierzbicka (1991) sees that the
notion of positive and negative politeness may be applicable to Western English
speaking communities, but they could not be considered as universal. According to
her, it is not the case in the Japanese society or culture, the Japanese puts emphasis
on the hearer's feelings. Concerning the universality of face construct, many
researchers argued that Brown and Levinson’s face wants are not applicable to
studies of Eastern languages, and this is due to the fact that politeness conventions
of these languages are based on the group identity and not on individualism. For
example, Matsumoto (1988) explains that politeness strategies can indeed be
present in the Japanese society but the motivations of their use are different from
those mentioned in the model. He also shows that the notion of “deference” does
not only relate to smooth interaction but also reflects the addressee’s self image.
Another point in the politeness model is criticized, it is the relationship between
indirectness and politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987) consider that off-record
1
Outed in Fukushima (2002:45).
45
strategies are the most polite, while in English and Hebrew, these strategies are not
the most polite.
1.9. Conclusion:
We can conclude that Brown and Levinson’s model is a major contribution to
politeness research. Several studies in pragmatics and sociolinguistics, including
Brown and Levinson’s from which we have taken the theoretical distinction
between “negative” and “positive” politeness, have indicated the importance of
politeness in social interaction. The fact that politeness represents a social norm that
can be observed empirically in language and analyzed by means of language has
made it an important topic of study in sociolinguistics when examining the
relationship between language and society.
We have dealt with the theoretical part of the present research “Politeness
strategies in an Algerian speech community including some relevant sociolinguistic
concepts, politeness theories and politeness strategies .In chapter two we will
attempt to give an overview of the politeness phenomenon in the Algerian context,
describing the linguistic situation in Algeria and the production and structure of the
requesting speech act, in addition to some politeness aspects in Algeria.
46
.
Chapter two:
Politeness and the request speech act
47
2.1. Introduction:
In the last two decades, linguists have shifted their focus or emphasis in second
and foreign language teaching and learning theories from a grammatical approach to
a communicative or pragmatics studies that is to say pragmatic principles are also
important to perform in a language. This is reflected in the growing number of
empirical studies on speech act behaviour, which have shown that it is not enough
to master the grammar and vocabulary of the target language, but also knowing the
cultural norms of that language is essential to make communication successful. The
only way to minimize pragmatic failure or lack in a language is by acquiring
pragmatic competence, that is, “the ability to use language effectively in order to
understand language in context” (El Samaty 2005, p. 341).1
On the other hand, numerous studies have shown that politeness norms are
different from one culture to another. Every culture and every language has its ways
of showing respect, maintaining face and avoiding imposition. For example Rizk
(2003) points out that what is considered appropriate in one language might not be
1
Quoted in The Linguistics Journal, April 2007, volume2, issue1.
48
appropriate in another, and he gave the example of “the fat girl”, he argued that in a
Western African community to praise a fat girl is a compliment; while in an
American context it is considered an insult.
If rules of politeness are not observed in a given society, people can not live
with each other and communicate together. Thus, this study examines the use of
politeness strategies and the effectiveness of communication in the performance of
requests by speakers of Elfhoul speech community. Brown and Levinson (1978)
and Lee (2004) state that politeness is universal because all cultures share norms of
linguistic politeness, yet it is also culturally variable since what is polite in one
culture may not be judged polite in another. In order to be polite, individuals must
have the ability to communicate their ideas appropriately and effectively. To
produce an effective communication, the employment of politeness strategies and
polite utterances may have a more successful result than an impolite one. This
chapter is devoted to the presentation of
some aspects of Algerian
politeness
norms and strategies, and the performance of the speech act of request in this Arabic
speaking community.
2.2. Studies on Requests:
Many research works have been carried out in the field of the requesting
speech act. Chief among these works is the one conducted by House and Kasper
(1981) who study requests production in German and English. They suggested nine
levels of directness in requests. They also present modality markers and distinguish
two kinds of modifiers: “downgraders” and “upgraders”. It is meant by
downgraders the use of utterances that soften the impact of the act, and upgraders
are used when the speaker wants to increase the force of an utterance on the hearer.
House and Kasper (1981) analysed the request speech act realization in two
communities, native speakers of English and native speakers of German. The results
of their study showed that the two groups differ in their social norms of producing
requests. The strategy mostly used by speakers of English is the preparatory that
means that the English are indirect. In contrast, German speakers tend to employ
49
direct strategies as the statement of obligation is their favoured strategy. Thus, the
English consider German speakers as less polite in their requests.
Wierzbicka (1985) has also investigated the request speech act, showing the
differences between English and Polish in requesting strategies. The research
assumes that the differences between the two languages are related to the
differences in the cultural rules that exist in these societies. She revealed that the
English have a great tendency towards the interrogative and conditional form; while
the polish rarely use interrogatives.
Blum-Kulka (1982) conducted a study on the request behaviour in Hebrew
comparing it with the Canadian and American speakers of English. This study
showed that the distance and the power relationship between interlocutors are very
crucial factors in request performance.
Reiter (2000) investigated politeness in Britain and Uruguay; she showed that
the social distance between the interlocutors has a great effect on the realization of
requests in British English and Uruguayan speakers of Spanish. The Uruguayans
favour high levels of directness more than the British who show tendency towards
non-conventional indirectness. Reiter concludes that speakers of Uruguayan
Spanish do not consider negative politeness as important as it is seen by the British.
Felix-Brasdefer (2005) examined indirectness in requests among Mexican
university students. The findings of this study reveal that native speakers of
Mexican Spanish show preference towards conventional indirect strategies when the
interaction occurs between distant interlocutors, and they prefer to use direct
strategies with closer people.
Fukushima (1996) investigates the request strategies that British and Japanese
speakers use. The questions raised in this study are: Do British subjects use the
same or different strategies as the Japanese? And if so what are the differences and
similarities? Fukushima assumes that the cases or situations where there is high
degree of imposition require politeness strategies in both English and Japanese. The
subjects are given situations that elicit requests in their native languages. Both
50
groups are influenced by the degree of imposition, the social distance and the
relative power between the speaker and the hearer, but there are differences between
the two in the use of strategies since the British prefer the conventional indirect
forms and the Japanese tend to use direct forms.
Jalilifar (2009) conducted a study to compare the employment of the request
strategies by Iranian learners of English as a foreign language and Australian native
speakers of English. The study reveals that learners of English as a foreign language
tend to use indirect strategies, whereas native speakers of English use the direct
ones more. It is also shown that the social distance and the power relationship
influence both groups in terms of use of request strategies.
As far as Arabic is concerned, there are few empirical works on the realization
of the request speech act. Among the studies conducted involving native speakers of
Arabic, the following are mentioned:
An important investigation was carried out by Scarcella and Brunak (1981) who
made a comparison between beginning and advanced Arabic learners of English and
native speakers of English in request performance.
The findings indicated that the advanced learners tend to use the imperative form
with closer people, whereas beginning learners use imperatives with all addressees
without taking into account the social variables.
Another study that examined request production in three groups, American
English, Egyptian Arabic, and Egyptian learners of English was conducted by
Shazly (1993). The three groups showed differences in the request strategies
employed; there is a tendency by Egyptian learners of English towards indirect
strategies in the form of interrogatives. In addition, it was observed that the Arabic
speakers adopt religious expressions in their requests.
Al-Ammar (2000)1 has investigated the strategies and realizations of the
requests in spoken English and Arabic, the subjects were Saudi female English
1
Cited in Umar (2004:55)
51
majors. The findings reveal that English share with Arabic a very rich range of
strategies, and that requests vary according to social contexts.
These frameworks really explain the significance of politeness phenomenon in
speech act behaviour. They reveal that the realization of speech acts depends on the
communities' social and cultural background.
2.3. Aspects of politeness in Algeria:
Language is very important in human beings’ lives because through language
people can communicate. Speakers can express indignation and annoyance, as well
as admiration and respect. The way people convey their messages is not the same
but it depends on many factors such as age, gender and the social context.
Furthermore, the way people communicate may differ from one country or
culture to another; each culture influences the way people talk and the degree of
expressing politeness is not the same for all languages. For example, in Algeria it is
not polite to call one’s parents with their first names, while in the United States this
is acceptable. Lakoff (1974:13-14) says:
[A]ll languages have devices to indicate politeness and formality. But, for some
languages, politeness must be encoded into every sentence: there are obligatory
markers of status, deference and humility .Other languages express politeness less
overtly, or differently: perhaps by smiling or in the stance, or distance kept between
participants in an encounter .A speaker from one culture translated to another will not,
perhaps, know how to match his feelings to the signals he is supposed to give.
Being polite is important, prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, had spoken
about it saying that politeness, which seems very light here, will weigh very heavy
in goodness on the Day of Judgement. The underlying principle of politeness is to
preserve harmony by showing good intentions and consideration for the feelings of
others. Politeness costs nothing but gains everything, it is the way we influence
people and gain friends.
The Algerian society is a very politeness-conscious one, and has many flowery
polite expressions. Respect is shown to people higher in social status, older in age,
52
and that applies even to older sisters and brothers. Of course, familiarity is taken
into account.
In most Algerian speech communities, the word that is used to refer to the
concept “politeness” is: dab as a noun and the adjective is maddab :
masculine and  maddba : feminine.
It is a normal practice for Algerians to greet and salute first whenever they meet
people. They are very polite and good-mannered .They are used to using a huge
number of polite language markers and formulas, such as [esal:m
aam] “hello”, [kran]”thanks”, [a:k eaa]”good health”
.All human speech communities have such formulas ,although their character and
the incidence of their use may vary enormously from one society to another .
The linguistic persistence of formulas has been occasionally noted by
ethnographers, as in Ferguson (1981:32):
Politeness formulas, in so far as they constitute a folk literature genre similar to
proverbs, riddles and nursery rhymes, tend to include archaic forms and constructions
which have disappeared from ordinary speech.
In the word of Erving Goffman (1971:90), politeness formulas are described as
follows :
among the most conventionalized and perfunctory doings we engage in and
traditionally have been treated by students of modern society as part of the dust of
social activity ,empty and trivial
According to Ferguson (1996:142), in the Arabic speaking countries, many
politeness formulas appeared with the coming of Islam. For example, a striking
number of Arabic greetings and “thank you” formulas have spread along with
Islam; the best known example of such an Islamic formula is esala:m
aam, which is uttered by all the Arabic speakers.
Many Arabic formulas come in pairs where a specific initiator formula is
followed automatically by its appropriate response formula. For instance, there are
53
certain occasions of greeting or saying farewell where the formula aa 
:a “take care of yourself” may be used and its
response
is llah
slmak “God keep you in peace”. There are other initiator formulas such as
sm li:hm referring to the addressee’s family) “say hello to your
family” which have   “I will God willing” as a response. In
this section, some aspects of politeness in Algerian speech community will be
examined concerning both verbal and non verbal communication:
*Greetings:
In Algerian Arabic, the standard basic greeting is saa a,
which is approved religiously. It translates literally to "Peace be unto you." The
appropriate response is aa saa meaning "And unto you peace."
But knowing the words is not enough. Greetings in Algeria will go on for many
minutes as the parties ask about each other's health, faith in Allah, families, work,
etc .Algerians will shake hands when greeting, touching the heart immediately after
the handshake to show that the greeting is sincere. In the case of family or close
friends, women greeting women and men greeting men will kiss each other's cheeks
left and right a few times. How much you kiss cheeks also depends on how much
you like the person, or how long it has been since you have seen the person. The
longer it has been, the more kisses are exchanged. Women and men, who are not
related, never kiss. Concerning old people, it is quite polite to kiss their head and
not to kiss their cheeks, in Algerian Arabic, it is called a rà:, this explains
the great respect people have for this age group.
Other shorter greetings include abess meaning literally "No harm?" or something
like "How's it going?" .When just passing someone on the street, salam is used.
*Congratulations:
The formulaic exchange of blessings on appropriate occasions is a well-known
phenomenon in modern Arab culture; for example when someone succeeds in
studies, or in a work or when one displays a new possession or moves to another
54
house, he is greeted with mbru:k “blessed” to which he replies llà:h jbrk
fi:k “ God bless you”.
In Algeria, many expressions are used to congratulate, mbru:k is the most
common ,we say blbrk, kxlHq mAbru:k .When someone is getting
married people congratulate him or her as:”  blbrk li:k allà:h jsar .
When a family gets a new born, it is congratulated with: 
 aa and a aa.
*Thanking:
In Arabic "Thank you" is [kran] which literally means “thanks.” A simple
“thank you” is substituted by a host of expressions of gratitude and many prayers.
Now in Classical Arabic there is a more formal way to express one’s gratitude.
Let’s take a look at it. The equivalent of “Thank you very much” is  kran
zi:ln The first word of the phrase  kran  means “Thanks” as we learned
earlier. This is followed by zi:lan  which means “a lot.” So, both words
together mean “thanks a lot.” This phrase is quite formal and is usually used for
writing “thank you” notes, or thanking someone when they invite you to their home
for lunch or dinner, as well as in business context and other formal situations.
On the other hand, for very special occasions when someone goes above and
beyond the call of being kind, when someone is extremely generous, or for any
other time you're extremely grateful, we have the following phrase to express
extreme gratitude: bà:raka allà:hx fi:k and this can mean “Thank you very much”
although its literal meaning is “God bless you”. The first word bà:raka means “to
bless.” This is followed by allà:hx which is “God” in Arabic. The last word in this
phrase is fi:k which means “in you”. The three words put together bà:rk llà:hx
fi:k literally mean “God bless you”.
In Algerian Arabic, the most common word for thanking is ai:t to a male,
and ai:ti to a female. It is practised everywhere especially by young people.
55
There are many other expressions used to thank in Algeria. They are as follows:
[allà:h jaafdak]([rabq jali:k]( [allà:h jai:k Faa], [allà:h jGazi:k] , these
expressions may represent one meaning which is “God preserve and bless you”.
One important point that should be mentioned here is that there is a set of
expressions which can be used for gratitude ; here are some of these phrases : [allà:h
jsFGi:k]( [allà:h jFnsrak]([allà:h jnawrak]([allà:h jFfta li:k], allà:h aa.
These are kinds of prayers that are used by the speaker as the realization of negative
politeness to encourage the listener to do something for him/her. Such application
of prayers seems to be culture-specific and is usually used for making requests.
They also appear to be widely used by elderly and/or uneducated people in Elfhoul
speech community.
*Euphemism:
Another strategy used by Algerian speakers in most their interactions is
euphemism. “Euphemism” is a polite word or expression that you use instead of a
more direct one to avoid shocking or upsetting someone. A euphemism is an
expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to
the listener than the word or phrase it replaces. Euphemism belongs to the broader
linguistic practice of double-speak or double-talk. Doublespeak, according to
Wikipedia (2003, WWW) is language “deliberately constructed to disguise its
actual meaning, usually from governmental, military, or corporate institutions.”
Euphemisms are also used to hide unpleasant ideas, even when the term for them is
not offensive (Wikipedia, 2003, WWW), for instance `pass away' is a euphemism
for `die”. Among the euphemisms identified in Algerian Arabic:
- Death:
Since the idea of "death" is unpleasant, one tends to use other terms to refer to it,
using terms less disturbing.
It is generally referred to the deceased or the one who died as [Flmaru:m]: the one
who is a recipient of mercy instead of [FlmqFt], and if one wants to say that
someone had died, it is preferable to say [twFfa]or : instead of mt.
56
.
-Mention of a Taboo:
Taboo words are those that are considered inappropriate in certain contexts, bad,
offensive and vulgar, and are to be avoided by most people.
In the Algerian context, when someone wants to say a taboo, he automatically says
 "May God grant you dignity!" or sFmu:lq l hd FlkFlm. "I beg
your pardon," "Excuse me" and its root-echo response: zzk llà:h "And you
are dignified."
-Mention of Female Members of the Family:
Whenever a man speaks about his female members of his family or his wife, he
never calls her with her name or even say “my wife”, he rather refers to her as:
mxlt Fdd:r and he may also refer to her as:Fdd:r
or  “my house”.
When talking about his sister, he refers to her as :  "my sister".
The tendency to use euphemisms is important when talking about death,
sickness and toilet stuff. Concerning Western norms of talk, however, the restriction
on talking about female members of the family may sound strange for an
Anglophone. It would be strange not to be able to say "my wife", "my sister", or
"my mother", but this is a very important part of the Arabic culture.
*Oaths:
Another cultural aspect that is observed in this speech community is the use of
oath words. It is a statement of a fact calling upon God. Oath words are thought of
as being the appropriate expression for both reflecting the value systems of
individuals and keeping one’s face in natural conversations; they are ways to show
that a certain speech is true. In the case of Algeria women swear frequently more
than men. However, oath words are derived from religious values
It seems that swearing, or at least religious swearing, decreases as education
increases. It may be because educated people are sure about themselves and their
reasoning power so that they do not employ linguistic devices to prove the truth of
their speech. In addition, their face is solidly established in society. Therefore, there
57
is no urgent need to defend their territory. In fact they use swear words as a last
resort.
The other culture-specific linguistic devices that are used frequently by
speakers, as the realization of positive politeness strategies, are the expressions
 (if God wishes) ::(God preserve you from the evil eye).
The use of these expressions is originally rooted in the cultural and religious beliefs
of these people. For example, they believe that if they are going to do something in
the future and they are talking about doing it, they must say “if God wishes”,
otherwise they will not be able to do it when they intend to. They also believe in
order to avoid harm caused by an evil eye, when they see something attractive and
beautiful which belongs to somebody, they must say “God preserve you from the
evil eye”, otherwise, something bad will happen to its owner. Or the expression
  is often used when someone sees something that pleases him or
her.
Politeness can also be expressed non-verbally in the Algerian context, many
acts and rules are to be followed and adopted, and among the non-verbal
communication light will be shed on some aspects that exist in this Arabic
community:
*when greeting a woman, the man should not offer his hands for a handshake unless
the woman extends hers first.
*eye contact is generally
avoided in most cross-gender encounters that is to say
that, it is a polite thing if a female’s eye does not get in contact with that of a male
due the respect and the deference exchanged.
*It is considered polite to take off your shoes before entering a home; this is known
in almost all Arabic countries.
*For body language, it is also very important for visitors of an Algerian home never
to sit in such a way that their feet are pointing directly at someone else, the way of
sitting is very important. It is also decent for females not to talk or to smile to a
stranger. Pointing at someone with a finger can be very rude and the right hand is
always more acceptable in eating, giving and receiving.
58
*There is another interesting greeting that can be observed in the Algerian society,
which is called  : “to kiss one’s front”, it is done when greeting old
persons to show respect; it is more polite to kiss old people on their fronts than to
kiss them on the cheeks.
*There is a very elaborate etiquette of coffee-offering in Algeria, coffee is more
important than food in almost every Algerian home. It is very embarrassing and
disgraceful not to offer coffee to a guest and it could be regarded as inappropriate
and impolite.
2.4. Politeness and the speech act of request:
As mentioned before, speech act studies are derived from the philosophy of
language. Philosophers assumed that the minimal units of communication are
considered as a performance of acts, such as asking questions, thanking,
apologizing, and so on. Variations in the use of speech acts may be influenced by
social parameters, as all the different variations in language use. Philosophers like
Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) have introduced the idea that when we speak we
perform actions. The basic concept of speech act theory is that saying is part of
doing. The philosopher Austin was the first to put speech act into theory in his
major work "How to do things with words". After his death, one of his students,
John R.Searle further elaborated and refined Austin's ideas on speech act theory.
Searle (1969:16)1 explains speech acts as follows:
The unit of linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the
symbol, word or sentence, or even the token of the symbol, word or sentence, but
rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance
of the speech act.
Making communication successful does not require only knowledge or mastery
of the grammar of a certain language or dialect but its pragmatic aspects as well.
That is why we speak of “pragmatic competence” which is specifically defined by
Koike (1989:279)2 as "the speaker's knowledge and use of rules of appropriateness
1
2
Quoted in Reiter (2000:31)
Ouoted in Jalilifar (2009:46).
59
and politeness which dictate the way the speaker will understand and formulate
speech acts"
Speech act theory consists of three parts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act:
Locutionary act: the performance of an utterance or the production of a sentence
that is meaningful, for instance "what time is it?"
Illocutionary act: it is the complete speech act realized by the act of speaking and
the above example, it is a "request".
Perlocutionary act: is when the speaker’s utterance produces an effect on the
addressee, it is an act performed by saying something, for example, the addressee
can react by giving the time.
Austin (1962) considers illocutionary acts as performatives and makes a
distinction between implicit and explicit performatives. An explicit performative
refers to the existence of a performative verb such as "to promise" in the sentence:
"I promise to call you" whereas the implicit performative does not include such
verbs, for instance without "promise" but just to say" I will call you".
Another important concept in the speech act theory is the "felicity conditions".
This concept was first introduced by Austin (1962) and later developed by Searle
(1969). It states that a number of conditions have to be present in order to perform
successful speech acts, such as having the right to perform such acts, the persons
and circumstances should be appropriate to the act; each speech act has its own
appropriate felicity conditions.
One of the major contributions to the understanding of speech acts is that of the
ethnographer Dell Hymes (1962) who considers that speech acts are governed by
the socio-cultural rules of communication in a society. He also proposed his
taxonomy which includes speech situations, speech events and speech acts.
According to him, a speech situation takes place in a speech community, for
instance, a party is a speech situation. A speech event takes place in a speech
situation for example a conversation in a party. Thus, a speech act occurs within the
speech events such as compliments or requests.
60
Concerning speech acts classification, Austin (1962:150) has classified them
into: “verdictives” (one can exercise judgment), “expositives” (to clarify reasons),
“exercitives” (to exercise power), “behabitives” (to express feeling) and
“commissives” (to declare intention). Although Austin's classification is considered
as incomplete, it helps to give a good picture on illocutionary acts.
On the other hand, Searle (1979) proposed five other categories of speech acts:
“assertives”(to state, to claim), “directives”( to request, invite, command),
“commissives”
(to
promise, to threaten), “expressives”(to
express
one's
psychological feeling toward a certain state, such as thanking, greeting,
congratulating), and “declarations” (acts performed to inform about a situation such
as marrying).
Speech acts, as Austin (1962:.65)1 defines them are:
acts performed by utterances such as giving order, making promises, complaining,
requesting, among others. When we utter a sentence or a phrase, we are performing an
act to which we expect our listeners to react with verbal or nonverbal behavior.
As far as speech acts are concerned, requests are one of the most commonly
researched speech acts in both cross-cultural and interlanguage studies2. Crosscultural pragmatic researchers analyze speech acts across a range of languages, and
they have paid considerable attention to the various strategies that speakers deploy
when performing the speech act of requesting.
Requests are among one of the many speech acts used quite frequently in every
day human interaction. They have an intention of a speaker to catch the attention of
the hearer and they place an imposition on the hearer. In Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) terms, requests are face-threatening acts (FTAs) which threaten the hearer’s
negative face. So, those who perform a request need to reduce the level of
imposition created by an act being requested in order to save the hearer’s face and,
at the same time get his/her compliance with a request.
1
Quoted in Jalilifar (2009 :46).
The term interlanguage was popularized by larry Selinker in 1972, it would be the result of two or more
languages. Interlanguage Pragmatics is defined by Shoshana Blum-Kulka (1996:167) as the system
developed when two languages come in contact; these two languages meet in the mind of the person who is
learning them.
2
61
Blum-Kulka et al’s (1989:11-12) description of the speech act “request”:
Requests are pre-event acts: they express the speaker’s expectation of the hearer with
regard to prospective action, verbal or nonverbal. Requests are face-threatening by
definition (Brown and Levinson 1987): hearers can interpret requests as intrusive
impingements on freedom of action, or even as a show in the exercise of power;
speakers may hesitate to make the request for fear of exposing a need or risking the
hearer’s loss of face.
A request is to ask people to do/not to do something or express one’s desire for
something. It is a speech act that has been considered as a worthy subject in
research because requests are “Face-Threatening Acts” which impose on the
addressee, and they are used in everyday conversations.
Requests are classified to belong to the group of directives which according to
Searle (1976:13) are an:
attempt by the speaker to get the hearer to do something .They may be very modest
attempts as when I invite you to do it, or they may be very fierce attempts as when I
insist that you do it.
Thus, request is a directive act and a pre-event which leads to the negotiation of
face during a conversation.
Directives represent an effort on the part of the speaker to get the hearer to do
something ,that is, to direct the hearer towards achieving a goal, generally to
achieve a speaker’s goal .There are different subcategories of requests such requests
of action ,requests for information, requests for attention, requests for sympathy.
However, they all involve a request for an action from another person.
A broader definition of requests is provided by Becker (1982, 1982:1).
According to him, a request:
refers inclusively to an utterance that is intended to indicate the speaker’s desire to
regulate the behaviour of the listener –that is, to get the listener to do something.
62
Requests are a good example of speech acts which imply an intrusion on the
addressee’s territory, so it is to limit his or her freedom of action and threaten his or
her “negative face”. In most cases, the speaker making a request requires the
addressee to perform some kind of action which is of benefit to the speaker .And to
achieve this, the speaker needs to use strategies to minimize the imposition of the
illocutionary act of a request that threatens the addressee’s face and may make
him/her in trouble .For this reason, one has to utilize less impositive request
strategies.
There are three primary social factors that have been determined to influence the
performance of requests in terms of their level of politeness: degree of social
distance, power, and rank of imposition.
Each of these factors plays a different role in requesting behaviour and carries a
different weight.
The degree of social distance or closeness of relationship between the interlocutors
is one of the most important social factors to consider when making requests in
Algeria. It can be a very important clue in helping you select the proper language
strategies to perform a request. An interaction between two friends implies that the
degree of social distance is very low, but a conversation involving a professor and a
student demonstrates a greater degree of social distance.
A request is composed of two parts: head act and modifiers .Head act is the main
utterance which conveys a complete request and can stand by itself without any
modifiers in order to convey request. The head act is followed or preceded by
modifiers that mitigate the impact of the request on the addressee (Reiter 2003). For
example:
I have forgotten my bag at home; could you lend me some money, please?
In this example, the head act of the request is “could you lend me some money?”
and it stands by itself without modifiers and conveys a clear request. “I have
forgotten my bag at home” and “please” are referred to as modifiers to mitigate the
request on the addressee.
63
In Arabic, a request also consists of two parts head act and modifiers. For example:
: i:   ? “God preserve you, close the
window?”
In this example, the head act is “ ?” which is a complete request,
and “: i: ” acts as modifier to soften the request.
Based on Brown and Levinson's (1987:65) politeness theory, requests are Face
Threatening Acts (FTAs), since a speaker is imposing on the hearer. Brown and
Levinson (1987) propose that when confronted with the need to perform a FTA, the
individual must choose between performing the FTA in the most direct and efficient
manner or attempting to soften the effect of the FTA on the hearer's face. The
strategy an individual chooses to employ depends upon the weightiness or
seriousness of FTA. The degree to which an individual is polite in a given situation
is often sociologically based. In particular, Brown and Levinson (1987) cite three
sociological factors that are crucial in determining the level of politeness which a
speaker (S) will use with an addressee (H):
(1) The relative power of H over S. (Asking a favour from a friend, for example, is
more easily done than asking the same favour from a superior).
(2) The social distance between H and S. (it is easier to perform a face-threatening
act with an acquaintance than with a stranger).
(3) The ranking of the imposition involved in doing the face-threatening act.
(Showing the way to the hospital is not as difficult as giving a lift to the hospital).
The speaker should consider these three variables. When performing an act, the
speaker should be aware of the degree of imposition of that act. Brown and
Levinson (1987:77) define the degree of imposition as
a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which
they are considered to interfere with an agent's wants of self-determination or of
approval.
In addition, the speaker should consider the relative power of the hearer, defined as:
64
The degree to which the hearer can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation
(face) at the expense of the speaker's plans and self-evaluation. (ibid: 77).
And as a third factor, the speaker should consider and evaluate the social distance
between the speaker and the hearer which Brown and Levinson (1987:76) call the
"symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which" the speaker and
hearer "stand for the purpose" of an act and the kinds of goods exchanged between
them ".
2.5. Directness and Indirectness in requests:
Indirectness is another feature that relates to politeness in formulating requests in
particular situations. Searle (1975) links certain types of indirectness with forms of
language with reference to conventionality. According to him, certain forms are
conventionally established for the production of indirect speech acts. There are two
types of pragmalinguistic conventions: conventions of means and conventions of
forms.
As far as indirectness is concerned, a lot of reasons lead speakers to be indirect;
among them we can mention the following:
*there is no other alternative, S may have a desire to express but because of
other factors or circumstances he can not express directly, he will choose to be
indirect. All in all, the best way to save the other’s face is to be indirect.
In English, requests can be linguistically realized with imperatives, interrogatives
and declaratives. However, using imperatives in the Arabic language renders the
conversation awkward in making polite requests because imperatives are less polite.
In the Algerian context, imperatives are modified by politeness markers or softeners
or polite expressions like: ” God preserve you”.
In performing a request, the speaker should always follow the principles of
politeness, and it is always the requester who directly or indirectly benefits from the
request. The intensity of this threat varies with the level of imposition of the
requested act and the conditions under which the request is made. For instance,
when someone asks another way to the hospital, the requested “matter” is not likely
to threaten the requestee’s face very much. Of course, this can not be the case when
65
a request involves greater imposition or restriction on the requestee’s freedom, such
as lending money or giving a lift.
House and Kasper (1981)1 claim that when the relative face-threat increases, a
speaker will select a more redressive strategy. A speaker is more likely to choose
negative politeness strategies over positive politeness when the relative face-threat
is high since negative politeness strategies are more redressive than positive
politeness strategies
Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989) distinguished three degrees of directness
in requests: direct requests, conventionally indirect requests, and nonconventionally indirect requests. They (1989:46) explain the first category as
follows:
A) The most direct, explicit level:
This level implies that the request is uttered straightforwardly without turning
around it, and they state that: “by directness is meant the degree to which the
speaker’s illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution”. (1989:278). Directness
is realized through means or strategies which are syntactically marked, such as the
imperative form, or by other means that form the request, such as performatives or
hedged performatives. The strategies that represent directness are ordered as
follows:
Mood derivable: where the illocutionary force is determined by the grammatical
form of the verb such as the use of the imperative.
Performatives: where the illocutionary act is stated and named explicitly by the
speaker using verbs like: I am asking you to, I tell you…
Hedged performatives: in which the utterances are modified by hedging expressions
such as “I would like to”.
Obligation statements: by this statement the hearer is obliged to perform the act,
using expressions like: “you must” and “you have to”.
1
Cited in Abdul Majeed Al-Tayib Umar (2004:49).
66
Want statements: they are utterances that indicate the speaker’s desire and want that
the hearer does the act, using “I’d like to” and “I want you to”.
The above strategies show that the aim of the speaker is apparent and transparent
with no ambiguity because the verb makes the communicative purpose clear. Thus,
there is a clear relationship between syntactic structure and pragmatic interpretation.
B) Conventionally indirect level:
The second category is the conventionally indirect level, defined by Blum-Kulka et
al. (1989:45:47) as follows:
a.
the conventionally indirect level: strategies that realize the act by reference to
contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalized
in a given language (1989:47).
Conventional indirectness is associated with ambiguity at the utterance’s level and
characterized by pragmatic duality. The range of ambiguity in this case tends to be
limited to two, specific interpretations (1989:45).
The authors want also to explain that conventional indirectness is characterized by
the conventionalization of both the means and the form that is to say the standard
sentences and utterances that are used for indirect requests, and the exact wording
of the request.
In their coding scheme, conventionally indirect requests are classified as follows:
Suggestory formulae: it is to suggest to the hearer to do the act.
Query-preparatory: it is the utterances that are linked to preparatory conditions such
as: ability and willingness. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989:280) state concerning
preparatory requests:
the utterance contains reference to a preparatory condition for the feasibility of the
request, typically one of ability, willingness or possibility as conventionalized in the
67
given language. Very often but not necessarily. So, the speaker questions rather than
states the presence of the chosen preparatory condition (query preparatory).
C) The nonconventional indirect level:
The third level of directness is the nonconventional indirect one, defined by the
authors as:
b.
the nonconventional indirect level,…strategies that realize the request either
by partial reference to the object or element needed for the implementation of
the act by reliance on contextual clues (1989:47).
This type of requests requires the addressee to interpret the illocution from the
context. It is divided into two other types: strong hints and mild hints. Strong hints
refer to those utterances which contain some relevant elements to the illocutionary
act. Mild hints on the other hand, do not contain any of the elements that are
relevant to the act, it is up the hearer to interpret, but they are considered as
requests.
All in all, it would be suggested that direct requests are to be adopted to be clear and
efficient,
conventionally
indirect
requests
are
used
to
show
respect;
nonconventionally indirect requests are used to avoid any damage to the hearer’s
face.
2.6. The language situation in Algeria:
The interplay between languages has always aroused linguists’ interests and
concerning Algeria, there was much debate on its contact situation. Classical
Arabic, dialectal Arabic, Berber and French have formed multilingual Algeria.
Most Algerians speak a vernacular variety of Arabic called "Algerian colloquial
Arabic". It is a mixture of spoken Arabic and other languages mainly French. This
is due to the country’s colonial experience which led Algeria to be a bilingual
community.
68
Bilingualism refers to the co-existence of two linguistic systems in a society. In
Algeria, it is the case of Arabic and French, which has resulted from the French
colonialism. French still enjoys an important role in both spoken and written forms.
This phenomenon led to an inevitable consequence in the Algerian linguistic
profile, and which is referred to as code-mixing. It is the ability to switch from one
language to another, that is to say the use of two or more languages .In everyday
conversation, natives use a lot of French items and expressions, as Bouhadiba
(1998:1-2) (quoted in Dendane 2007) says: French is “strongly implanted at the
lexical level”.
In everyday conversation, it is quite natural to make requests mixing Algerian
Arabic with French for example:  :  stilo "give me a pen",
 :  "brother, where is the hospital situated?" and :
 " give me your phone number". These are utterances that
contain French items; the French words are: :,and .
As far as politeness formulas are concerned, they are also loaded with French
words for example: we frequently say:  Meaning: hi, are you fine? ,
and   as a response,”I am fine, thanks God “.
Another example is when someone wants to thank a person especially the young
people, he/she says:  o “thank you so much”, I mentioned “the young “
because the old do not use these expressions unless they are educated .
The other phenomenon existing in Algeria is Diglossia, which was described first
by William Marcais (1931) using the term “diglossie”. It is the existence of two
aspects of the language which are referred to in Ferguson (1959) as “high” and
“low” varieties. The high variety is used in formal settings whereas the low is used
for informal and colloquial contexts. For polite requesting, it is quite noticed that
there is a mixture of these two varieties in the realization of requests for example:
 :”have you read the news today”.
69
Thus, choosing a particular code is quite connected to the notion of politeness.
Concerning diglossia in Algeria, the use of the colloquial variety is used to convey
solidarity between interlocutors; and the use of the standard variety, the formal one,
is used to show respect and to convey social distance And as far as bilingualism is
concerned, both codes, Arabic and French can load aspects of politeness in their
use.
2.7. Politeness strategies in Algeria:
Politeness in requests is considered as a communication strategy used by the
speaker to decrease or minimize imposition on the hearer and thus to maintain a
good relationship with him/her. Suh (1999, p.196)1 argues:
Given that requests are face-threatening acts, and that the use of politeness strategies is
affected by various factors, it would not be an easy task for language learners to perform
requests in linguistically, socially and culturally appropriate manners. They should not
only have sufficient linguistic resources to encode a request, but also know sociocultural
rules that affect their choice of politeness strategies in a given situation with taking into
account a variety of situational factors”. Further, he (1993, p.1 1) believes that:
Since the request is an unavoidable social act in human communication, there is a set
of request strategies prescribed to the speakers of every language. Although these request
strategies are often linguistically different on different languages, their main functions
remain the same universally in demonstrating mutual and equally between human beings.
(Cited in Hong, W.1996, p.l39).
We intend to extract and categorize the range of politeness strategies (positive
politeness, negative politeness ,bald-on record and off-record politeness) used by
Algerian speakers in certain situations ,relying on the model proposed by Brown
and Levinson (1987) as a basis.
A) Positive Politeness
1
Alfattah (2009 :25).
70
This kind of politeness is oriented towards the positive "face" of the listener. The
speaker treats the listener as a member of an in-group, a friend or a person whose
wants and personality traits are known and liked. In Algeria, we can notice a lot of
these strategies in interactions, here are some of them:
a. Notice, attend to listener (his wants, interests & needs): the speaker takes
notice of the listener’s condition (noticeable changes, remarkable
possessions, anything which looks as though the listener wants the speaker to
notice and approve of it). This type is adopted in Algeria; people make
comments on everything they observe on the listener, they may comment on
the appearances, the clothing, and the way of talking and the possessions of
people.
Examples:
 rak Hbb" You look so nice"
jFbni: Flon ntk   " I like your living room, it is
charming". These expressions show the speaker's interest or notice on the listener
appearances and possessions.
b. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with listener):
Speakers may exaggerate in praising others or others’ possessions with
exaggerated intonation and as well as intensifying modifiers to increase the weigh
of the act such as the word “wow” which is used to express pleasure and
exclamation.
People are used to exaggerating in describing what is new and nice for them. It is
polite to make compliments on the appearances or the character of the listeners, for
example: when someone is wearing nice clothes, his or her friends will say: 
  “your clothes are very nice” .Or when a women sees a beautiful
girl, she always uses the expression :  "She is like a doll", this is
used by women.
71
c.
Intensify interest of listener
Another way for the speaker to communicate with the listener with whom he
shares some of his desires is intensifying the interest in contributing to the
conversation using intensifiers, for instance, terf ku:n ll fth lju:m
mtmn,” Do you know who I saw today? You won’t believe me".
d. Use of in-group identity markers
There are different ways to convey in-group membership:
*Usage of address forms:
The forms of address do often function as positive politeness strategies that include
the addressee with the addresser in a commonality. That is perhaps why words from
the family semantic field recur in these forms. Among the address forms found in
Algeria:
 : “my brother”: to male we do not know;  : “ my sister”: to a female we
do not know; : “my uncle”: to an old man; : “my aunt”: to an old
women; :”pilgrim”: respectful, to an old man : to an old
women; : “my son”: to a boy by an old person; : “my daughter”: to
a girl by an old person; i:: “sir”: to a male teacher. These are common
address terms adopted in the Algerian context.
*Use of in-group language or dialect
The phenomenon of code-switching involves any switch from one language or
dialect to another in communities where the linguistic repertoire includes two or
more such codes. In situations where code-switching occurs, we may expect a
switch into the code associated with the in-group and domestic values to be a
potential way of encoding positive politeness. For example, an educated person who
72
wants to speak to his educated friend will use French or Modern Standard Arabic
terms, but when he wants to talk to another person who is uneducated, he will use
the local dialect “darija” to show solidarity. For example, one can say 
 “hi, how are you?” to greet his or her friend but not to greet his or her
grandmother.
e. Seek agreement:
Algerians try to seek agreement with the listener by raising safe topics. The
raising of safe topics allows the speaker to stress his agreement with the listener,
therefore satisfying the listener’s desire to be right. In English, the weather is a safe
topic for virtually everyone. In Algeria, however as a safe topic there is “greeting”.
Another way to seek agreement is by looking for topics in which it is possible to
agree. In English there is this example: Your neighbor comes home with a new car,
and you think it is huge and pollution-producing. You might still say: Isn’t your
new car a beautiful color?
However, in Algeria if a close friend buys something for us that we don’t like, we
may explicitly tell him/her: If the addressee does not have a close relationship with
us, we may first praise his possession and then make a comment on it. For instance,
you go to your brother-in-law’s house and you see he has bought a new piece of
furniture in a color you do not like. First you say: “congratulations” and then you
say: “but if it was red it would be nice”.
f. White lies:
A white lie is an unimportant lie that is considered as harmless and sometimes
beneficial. White lies are also used with the intention of being polite.When the
speaker wants to save the listener’s positive "face". For example, you go to
someone’s house for dinner, but they don’t know what you like. By chance, they
have cooked something that you don’t like. So you eat it without much of an
appetite. The person asks you: “Don’t you like our cooking?” You answer: “Just
73
before I came here, I ate something that spoiled my appetite”; so by this answer,
you can save the persons by whom you are invited.
Indeed, white lies are ways to avoid embarrassing others; otherwise, great damage
to the other's face will occur.
g. Jokes:
Jokes are useful ways to make requests from people less imposing. Jokes put
the listener at ease, and are based on mutual shared background knowledge. They
minimize the demand of a request, for example if someone needs money and wants
his friend to lend him some, he may tell him:  ? “Do you
have much money?”. It is to ask in a form of jokes and thus making the request
speech act occurring politely.
h. Give gifts to listener (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Another important act that is related to positive politeness is the act of giftgiving, not only tangible gifts but also human wants like cooperation and sympathy.
As far as sympathy is concerned, many more cases of humility and deeper
expression of sympathy by females than males can be observed. Furthermore, the
speakers may resort to shared religious beliefs in order to bring about a kind of
mental relief and support to the listener. For example, when one's friend’s father has
died we show him sympathy saying:: :  “my
condolences! May God bless you with patience”.
B) Negative Politeness:
Negative politeness is oriented toward satisfying the listener’s negative face.
Furthermore, it is the kernel or the core of respect behaviour. Negative politeness
enjoys both on-record delivery and redress of a Face Threatening Act. The
following are the strategies used for the realization of negative politeness:
a. Being conventionally indirect:
74
There is a clash between the desire to be direct and the desire to be indirect.
Some compromise between the two is reached in the strategy of conventional
indirectness. For example, imperatives are used to make offers, and assertions are
used to command: e.g. n   “how hot it is in here!” Instead of
saying:   “open the window”.
b.Minimizing the imposition:
One way of reducing the tension of the FTA is to indicate that the seriousness of
the imposition is not in itself great, leaving only social distance and power as
possible weighting factors.
e.g.: :    
“could you lend me your scissors? I’ll bring it right back”.
c. Giving deference:
There are two ways to give deference or respect to the hearer:
1. The speaker tries to seem very humble. In this case, more cases of humility are
observed. For example:
drq q i:r mrb “My house is very humble but you are welcome here”.
2. The speaker tries to use words and expressions which convey the idea that he/she
admires and appreciates the hearer for helping him/her for example:
ll:h jlli:k Fi: jl ndk Hwqj wt nFtGk “May God preserve
you, Professor. If you have some free time, I need you."
d. Apologizing:
The speaker can indicate his unwillingness to impinge on the listeners negative
face and partially redress that impingement.
1. The speaker can simply admit that he is impinging on the listener's face.
smlq dqronGqtFk “I’m sorry to bother you”.
75
D)Off-record:
Concerning the construction of an off-record utterance, one says something that is
either more general or actually different from what one means. It involves two
stages:
*to make notice to the addressee that some inference must be made.
*some mode of inference derives what is meant from what is actually said.
The strategies used for the realization of off-record politeness are by giving hints,
using contradictions, being ironic or using metaphors etc…
These are some the strategies that can be observed in the Algerian society.
2.8.Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP):
The cross-cultural study of speech acts is considered as being important to
analyse or to test the hypothesis about the universality of politeness phenomena. In
order to accumulate and examine cross-cultural data about speech acts, a team of
researchers have been interested in requests and apologies performance in eight
languages. It is a project developed mainly by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain ( 1984).
These languages are: American English, Australian English, British English,
Canadian French, German, Danish, Russian, and Hebrew. CCSARP made
comparisons between native and non-native speakers in different languages and
cultures. It focuses on the pragmatic side of language. The table1 below presents a
summary of the CCSARP coding scheme:
Obligatory
Part
Dirtect
Head Act
Conventional
Indirect
1
Taken from (Ho:33-34).
76
1. Mood Derivable
eg. Open the door!
2. Explicit Performatives
eg. I ask/request you to open~.
3. Hedged Performatives
eg. I’d like to ask you to ~.
4. Obligation Statements
eg. You should open the door.
5. Want Statements
eg. I want/wish you to open~.
1. Suggestory Formulae
eg. How about opening ~?
2. Query Preparatory
eg. Can/could you open ~?
Nonconventional
Indirect
Optional
Part
Polite Alerters
1) Alerters
(Openers)
Intimate Alerters
Mitigating
2) External
Modifier
(Supportive
Move)
Aggravating
3) Internal
Modifier
Downgraders
77
1. Strong Hint
eg. Why is the door closed?
2. Mild Hint
eg. I couldn’t find my door keys.
1. Title / Role
eg. Sir, Mr., Miss, Father
2. Greeting
eg. Hi, How are you?
3. Apology
eg. Excuse me, I am sorry (to
bother you).
1. Name
eg. John, Judy, Mary…
2. Vocative
eg. Hey, yo…
3. Aggravator
eg. Big mouth woman (BMW),
LKK
1. Preparator
eg. Are you free now?
2. Getting a Precommitment
eg. Can you do me a favor?
3. Grounder: give reasons
eg. I am preparing for tests.
4. Disarmer: show understanding
eg. I know you hate to be
bothered,
but……
5. Promise of Reward
eg. I will/can give you $10.
6. Imposition Minimizer
eg. …….only if you are not busy
7. Thanking
eg. Thanks a lot.
1. Insults
eg. You are really a chicken.
2. Threat
eg. …..or I will call the police.
3. Moralizing
eg. It is impolite to smoke indoors
because smoking is unhealthy to
yourself and people around you.
1. Tense
eg. I am wondering(wonder) if …
I hoped(hope) to ask you to…
2. Polite Markers
Upgraders
eg. Open the door, please.
3. Hedge
eg. Your article is a bit long.
Lower your voice a bit.
4. Downtoner: soften the impact
of
utterance
eg. Can you possibly open….?
.能..!(Bu neng chao o)
5. Cajoler: eg. You know, I really..
6. Appealer
eg. Open the door, ok/ will you?
1. Expletive
eg. Can you shut the damn door?
2. Repetition of the Request
eg. Shut up! Be quiet.
3. Intensifier
eg. Open the door right now!
You are really very noisy.
4. Emphatic Addition: provide
additional emphasis of the requet
eg. Go and open the door!
Table 2.3 CCSARP’s Coding Framework
Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) proposed a coding scheme to analyze the speech acts that
are elicited by their discourse completion tests. The head act is the main utterance
that achieves the function of requesting, it can be preceded or followed by
mitigating expressions.
2.9.Taxonomies of Politeness Structures:
In order to express politeness, some structures are to be used frequently, they are
politeness markers added to utterances to show respect and good relationships.
Among the most important ones the use of the word “please”.
House and Kasper (1981) suggested the following structural categories that are
frequently used to represent politeness:
78
1. Play-downs which are syntactic strategies used to soften the perlocutionary
influence of an utterance on the addressee or the hearer. Play-downs are divided
into four sub-categories:
a. The past tense (I wondered if …... I thought you might…).
b. The use of progressive aspect together with the past tense, e.g. I was thinking you
might…., I was wondering whether…
c. Interrogative form with modal verb, e.g. Wouldn’t it be a good idea if…...
couldn’t you…?
d. Consultative devices, which are structures which propose to the addressee or ask
his/her cooperation and acceptance, e.g. would you mind…? Could you……..? So it
is to consult the hearer in doing an act.
2. Hedges are utterances added to speech to leave the option open to the addressee
to impose his / her own intent or desire, e.g. kind of, sort of, somehow, more or less,
rather, and what have you.
3. Understaters which is a means of proposing the content of the utterance by a
phrase functioning as an adverbial modifier or also by an adverb itself, e.g. bit, a
little bit, a second, a moment, briefly.
4. Downtoners which are strategies used to adjust the impact of the speaker's
utterance, e.g. just, simply, possibly, perhaps, really.
5. Committers, which lower the degree to which the speaker commits her / himself
to the propositional content of the utterance, e.g. I think, I guess, I bet, in my
opinion.
6. Forewarning, which is a strategy the speaker, could use to make some
notifications on an FTA (e.g. pass "compliments" e.g. you may find this a bit too
boring, but…... you're good at solving computer problems.
7. Hesitators, which are concerned with phonetics, e.g. er, uhh, ah or instance of
stuttering.
8. Scope-staters which express a subjective opinion about the state or the case
referred to in the proposition, e.g. I'm afraid you're in my seat, I'm disappointed that
you couldn't….., It was a shame you didn’t.
79
9. Agent avoiders, an utterance in which the speaker uses the impersonalized form
when he or she wants to criticize the addressee, e.g. using the passive structures or
utterances such as people don’t do X.
House and Kasper also suggest a new set of what they call upgraders in which
the speaker uses what is called modality markers to make the utterance seems
polite.
1. Overstaters: they are adverbs or adverbial expressions used to modify the content
of the utterance produced, e.g. absolutely, purely, terribly, awfully etc.
2. Intensifiers, which are markers used to deepen the adjective in the utterance e.g.
very, so, quite, really, just, indeed etc.
3. Committers, which are expressions by which the speaker can indicate a high
degree of loyalty to the content of the utterance, e.g. I'm sure, certainly, obviously,
etc…
On the other hand, Holmes (1995) simplifies the taxonomy rather radically and
classifies the linguistic expressions that are maintained in realizing politeness into
hedges and boosters. Hedges comprise the structures listed as downgraders by
House and Kasper, Hence committers, down toners, understaters and hedges are all
hedges for Holmes. Boosters are what House and Kasper call upgraders,
As far as Arabic is concerned, particularly the Algerian speech community, there
are similar and dissimilar features or structures that are employed along the scale of
politeness.
The use of the imperative in the Algerian context is a symbol of rudeness from the
speaker, like in the case of English. In order to reduce the rudeness of the act, some
politeness markers are adopted such as :"God preserve you" and
  "God keep you". Though the imperative is used, the request
becomes polite if put in this context. For example:
    : "give me water, God preserve you". These
markers are to some extent equivalent to the English word "please" which is used to
minimize the imposition on the hearer.
80
Modals also are used in Algerian Arabic, they are used to express indirectness in
requests, for example:  :  " could you give
me your phone number?". Here the speaker leaves the hearer the opportunity either
to accept or to refuse.
It is noticed that both languages, English and Arabic share the same intention to
avoid any threat the hearer's face, where the speaker tries to play down the cost to
the addressee; and this is a universal feature that characterizes all languages.
2.10. Conclusion:
Researchers report that languages do not differ only in phonology and grammar but
also in the rules of speaking and the patterns of interaction which vary from one
speech community to another. If one can not master specific community rules,
break-downs and communication problems will occur. In order to avoid such
miscommunications, linguists try to consider appropriate speech act behaviour more
carefully and more systematically.
Indeed, speech acts have been mostly employed as the medium to investigate
politeness phenomena for the reason that they are produced according to universal
pragmatic rules. However, many languages or cultures show variations in the
interactional style or mode. The differences and variations are oriented by
“positive” and “negative” politeness. In this study, in particular there is an emphasis
on the speech act of requests because of its importance in people’s daily lives. In a
81
request, there is an imposition on the hearer which requires politeness strategies to
mitigate this imposition.
In this chapter, we have shed light on some cultural aspects that characterize
Algeria in general, although there is not much literature on Arabic politeness.
This investigation into the linguistic behaviour of making requests in Elfhoul
speech community is an important attempt to add a new dimension to the study of
Algerian Arabic.
We have also identified some of the politeness strategies used in this speech
community taking into account Brown and Levinson’s framework (1978,1987) on
politeness phenomena. In the next chapter we will see how requests are performed
in Elfhoul using these strategies.
Chapter Three:
Data analysis
82
3. Politeness strategies in requests:
3.1. Introduction:
This chapter includes the analysis of the data obtained by the participants of
Elfhoul speech community, and interpretations of the results. It focuses on two
scales, the politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) and the request
strategies as put by Blum-Kulka (1989).
3.2. Method:
3.2.1. The sample:
The sample of this study consists of sixty subjects, who voluntarily accepted to
take part in this work. The participants were considered along the age and gender
dimensions. Age was chosen as a factor because politeness strategies may vary with
different age groups, thus subjects were between 30 and 45 years old i.e., one age
group. Gender also was examined here; there were 32 females and 28 males. This
group represents a range of people that includes friends and neighbours living in
Elfhoul speech community.
83
3.2.2. The Data Collection Procedure:
The data for this study is elicited from the sample through the Discourse
Completion Test (DCT). The DCT is a form of questionnaire used to collect
sociolinguistic data depicting some natural situations to which the respondents are
expected to react making requests. This test was originally designed by Blum-Kulka
in 1982 and has been widely used since then in collecting data on speech acts
realization both within and across language groups.
In the analysis of spoken language, this method has been criticised as being an
ineffective tool, because of the differences between written and spoken forms
(Billmyer &Varghese,2000). DCTs usually ask participants to write down what they
would say in a certain setting .It has been suggested that DCTs fail “to elicit the full
range of formulas in spoken data,” and that the responses are “more limited in
length and deficient in the level of elaboration and frequency of repetition typical of
human spoken interaction” (Billmyer & Varghese, 2000: 518).
Despite criticisms, DCTs also have certain strengths. A DCT has the advantage
of being able to collect large amounts of data by distributing questionnaires to a
large number of subjects, and also to record information about communication,
rather than relying on retrospection or second hand accounts. It also allows more
data to be collected in a short period of time. The use of a DCT for this study was
particularly advantageous because it allowed people to complete the task in their
usual environment. Another advantage is that this method considers the variables
and controls them. Sasaki (1998:458) argues that:
“Because the researcher can control variables related to a given context (e.g., the
relative status and closeness of the respondent and the interlocutor) in production
questionnaires, it is possible to investigate the effect of such variables.”
The questionnaire used in this investigation involves five written situations, the
situations vary according to a number of social variables: the social distance
between the speakers, the relative social power of the respondents and the ranking
of the request, in addition to two important factors age and gender. In each situation,
84
there is a brief description that illustrates the relations (see figure 3.1) between the
participants (close or stranger) and their dominance over each other (high, equal or
low). The subjects were instructed to fill in with what they would say in each of the
five contexts. The respondents were asked to put themselves in real situation and to
assume that in each situation they would, in fact, say something they were asked to
write down what they would say as a suitable request using their own dialect, not
standard Arabic.
People may evaluate power difference, social distance between S and H and
the degree of imposition spontaneously, and as Brown and Levinson (1987: 231–
232) point out that:
… a shift from one strategy to another may reflect the speaker’s momentary
‘mood’, not only as a function of the interaction and therefore as a part of the
interactional balance, but completely extrinsically to the interaction as well. … Such
mood changes reflect a changed evaluation of D, P, and R, and in order for
interactants to interpret utterances correctly they must have some assessment of
each other’s current mood.
The table below shows the different variables used in the different situations,
gender is considered only in the situation two, and age in situation three. As with
the case of requests, the situations of the discourse completion test vary according
to the following parameters: social distance, social power and the imposition rank.
Situations
Situation 1
Variables
Social Distance
High rank of imposition
Situation 2
Gender
Situation 3
Age
Situation 4
Situation 5
Social Distance
Low rank of imposition
Power distance
Table 3.1: Combination of explanatory variables.
85
3.3. Analysis of types of requests used:
According to Searle (1972:136), there are many kinds of acts associated with
the speaker’s utterances in a certain speech situation. He calls all what is produced
linguistically “a speech act”. This phase of study investigates the utterances
produced by Elfhoul Arabic speakers to perform the speech act of requesting. It will
deal with the request strategies in this Algerian speech community, which are
motivated by the findings of the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(CCSARP) (1989).
The purpose of a directive or a request is to get the addressee to do an act; it is an
important speech act in everyday interaction.
According to Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989), the request sequence
may include alerters such as address terms (e.g.  ); preposed
supportive moves (e.g.  )
“I need money”; head act
(e.g.   ) “could you lend me some?”, and postposed
supportive moves (e.g. :   ) “I promise to return
them”.
The main analysis of requests in this study is on the head act rather than other
components in the request sequence.
The data collected through the Discourse-Completion-Test is analyzed on the
basis of an independent examination of each response.
In the first stage, the data is analysed to identify the request strategies chosen by
each group and in each situation. In the second stage, it is in terms of politeness
strategies used in each setting. The responses to DCT were then tabulated and
analysed according to the framework of Blum-Kulka’s request types, and the work
of Brown and Levinson in terms of politeness strategies.
Generally speaking, request strategies are expected to be influenced by the relation
between interlocutors.
86
The coding scheme for this study is based upon three levels of directness, and the
three levels of directness have been interpreted as strategies.
Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985: 305) explain how the three levels are the basic
categories of request realisation:
The realization patterns for requests seem to consist of at least three basic categories,
these three categories form a scale of directness which seems to be shared by all languages.
The first category consists of the direct, linguistically marked ways for making requests
(such as imperatives and performatives). The second category, which is the most difficult
one to compare across languages, consists of those indirect strategies which are
conventionally used for requesting in a given language, such as “could you” or “would
you” in English. The third category consists of the openended set of indirect hints, such as
“It’s cold in here” used as a request to close the window.
The data was analyzed according to a classification of request strategies originally
presented by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and included strategies used as head acts and
strategies used as external modifications to the head act. This section presents the
pragmalinguistic strategies observed in the interactions across the five request
situations. The data consists of responses to five request situations presented in the
questionnaire. (see the appendix).
A)Situation one:
-To borrow money from a friend:
In situation one, the participants were asked to write what they would say if
they wanted to borrow some money from a friend, a neighbour and a brother. This
situation is characterized by the fact that the participants are friends and have equal
status. Asking money from friends reveals that there is a greater tendency by the
subjects
to use indirect strategies (query preparatory) rather than direct ones;
although the relationship between friends is very close, the head act strategies used
were :Mood derivable 51%, query preparatory 26%, want/need statement strategies
are observed with 4% and suggestory formulae 6% . hints percentage is 14%..
According to Brown and Levinson, the findings confirm that the three determinants,
the social distance (D), the power the addressee has over the addressor (P), and the
87
risk of the imposition influence the Arab respondents' performance. The preference
for indirect request in borrowing money situation seems to be an instance of
negative politeness and shows that being indirect the speaker assumes a large social
distance between him/herself and the interlocutor. There is an inclination towards
respecting the freedom of action of the hearer. Thus, the preference towards
indirectness is due to the high ranking of imposition even though with friends.
Request strategies
Request from a friend
Mood derivable
31
51,7 %
Want statements
5
8,3 %
Suggestory formulae
3
5%
Query prepartory
14
23,3 %
Strong hints
7
11,7 %
Table 3.2 : Request strategies in requests from a friend
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Suggestory
formulae
Query prepartory
Strong hints
Request from a friend
Fig. 3.1:Distribution of request strategies used in friend to friend interaction
-To borrow money from a neighbour:
88
In the Arabic culture, the neighbour is given high degree of respect and
deference, the findings as shown in figure (3.3) reveal that the native speakers of
Arabic tend to use indirect strategies more than direct ones , query preparatory
request strategy more frequently than other strategies (41.8%). In this situation the
interaction is between two neighbours. The subjects favoured indirect strategies to
be more formal and polite because the use of indirectness means a high degree of
politeness according to Leech (1983). On the other hand, the native speakers of
Algerian
Arabic use a variety of direct and indirect strategies (query preparatory
41.8%, want/need statement 28.8%, mood derivable 24.5% and declarative
conditional strategies 4.2%). It is also important to note that indirect strategies were
also employed in the Arabic data because the situation requires a high degree of
politeness, some have claimed that they would not ask their neighbours for money
because of the great respect they show to them. Neighbours keep a large distance
between each other especially when the rank of the request is high like borrowing
money.
Request strategies
Request from a neighbour
Mood derivable
11
18,33 %
Want statements
4
6,67 %
Suggestory formulae
3
5%
Query prepartory
32
53,33 %
Strong hints
5
8,33 %
Table3.3: Distribution of request strategies between neighbours
89
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want
statements
Suggestory
formulae
Query
prepartory
Strong hints
Request from a neighbour
Fig. 3.2: Request from a neighbour
-Request strategies in brother to brother interaction:
Requests among brothers or family members are easier to perform than with
other people, that is to say we do not make efforts to minimize the threat when the
interaction is between brothers or sisters or close relatives, and the distance between
them is very close or there is no distance. The results show that 38 % of the
participants used mood derivable, 18 % used want statements,11,7 % query
preparatory, suggestory formulae 5 % , and strong hints 3,3 %.Most of the requests
addressed to the brothers were in the form of mood derivable that is to say direct
strategies are used .However, it is observed that subjects tend to use more polite
utterances too with their brothers because in this case (borrowing money) since the
imposition of the request is higher, high levels of indirecteness could be noticed
even with close people to achieve our goals (query preparatory, suggestory
formulae and hints ).
Request strategies
Request from a brother
Mood derivable
38
63,3 %
Want statements
11
18,3 %
90
Suggestory formulae
3
5%
Query prepartory
6
10 %
Strong hints
2
3,3 %
Table 3.4:Distribution of request strategies used between brothers
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Suggestory formulae
Query prepartory
Strong hints
Request from a brother
Fig. 3.3: Request strategies used in requests from a brother
Examples of direct strategies (mood derivable and want statements) used in
situation one in Algerian Arabic are shown below:
 :k    
May God preserve you Mohammed, lend me some money.
  :  
Oh My friend, I want you to lend me money?
Examples of indirect strategies (query preparatory, suggestory formulae and hints):
 :k     
God preserve you, I wonder if you can lend me some money?
   
How about lending me some money?
   
91
B)Situation two: (asking to close the window):
Gender as a social factor:
Many researchers like Blum-Kulka, Olshtain and Meir, found that a variety of
standard factors such as age, social status, familiarity, or gender play important
roles in the use of politeness strategies in requests. As far as gender is concerned,
many studies started to investigate gender differences in language. Linguists like
(Lakoff, 1976; Beeching, 2002) have shown that women use more polite formulas
than men. Sociolinguists try to explain why there is a greater frequency of the use of
polite speech from women than from men. In our society, it is socially acceptable
for a man to be forward and direct, but women are generally indirect using so much
polite expressions.
Asking someone to close a window seems to be very simple, but in fact it is
important to know how to perform this request appropriately in polite manners. The
subjects were asked to write what they would say if they wanted someone to close
the window in a bus considering gender as a basic factor. Different patterns of
request strategy were found to be related to speakers’ and addressees’ genders.
The findings of this situation (asking to close the window) as shown in figure3.4
confirm that Arab speakers use a variety of strategy types.
Direct strategies (mood derivable 63%) are observed in a great significant statistical
level in the Algerian data, at the same time, indirect strategies (query preparatory
and suggestory formulae) are also used to show a tendency for indirectness.
Furthermore, the nonconventional indirect strategies (hints) are also observed in the
Arabic data in a low statistical level
In male to male interaction, the strategies used are: mood derivable with
42,86%, suggestory formulae 28,57 % , query preparatory 17,86 % and strong hints
10,71%. People favour the use of mood derivable more than the other ways,
imperatives with politeness markers are common even among distant people,
because in this situation the interaction is between strangers (they do not know each
other).
92
In male to female interaction, the results are: mood derivable 32,14%,
suggestory formulae 10,71% ,query preparatory 28,57% and strong hints 3,57% .It
is found that seven males i.e,25% of them have answered that they could never ask
a woman to close a window because of the great respect they show to women. Thus,
respondents make a greater use of the indirect strategies more than the direct ones.
In female to female interaction, the percentage of mood derivable is (46,87%),
suggestory formulae 28,13%, query preparatory 6,25% and strong hints 18,75%.
In female -male interaction, the percentage of mood derivable is 43,75 %, query
preparatory 15,63 %, and suggestory formulae 34,37 %.There is also a tendency
towards hints with 6,25 %.
Request
Male to male
strategies
Mood derivable
Suggestory
formulae
Query
prepartory
Strong hints
Male to
Female to
Female to
female
female
male
12
42,86%
9
32,14%
15
46,87%
14
43,75%
8
28,57%
3
10,71%
9
28,13%
11
34,37%
5
17,86%
8
28,57%
2
6,25%
5
15,63%
3
10,71%
1
3,57%
6
18,75%
2
6,25%
Table 3.5: Distribution of request strategies used in situation 2
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Mood derivable
Suggestory formulae
Male to male
Query prepartory
Male to female
93
Female to female
Female to male
Strong hints
Fig 3.4: Request strategies in situation 2
Examples of direct strategies (mood derivable and want statements) in situation
two:
:    
May God preserve you brother, close the window?
     :
Brother, close the window if you want?
Examples of indirect strategies (query preparatory, suggestory formulae and hints):
:     
Could you please close the window?
    
How about closing the window?
  : :n : 
The window is open and there is some draught.
C)Situation three:
Age variable:
Age is also considered as a crucial variable in the realization of requests and
politeness strategies; a person's age may be an important factor in how he or she
initiates politeness or responds to politeness by others. Young people use different
strategies from old people and addressing an old person is not the same as
addressing the young people. It seems to be an important factor related to the
request strategies found in this study, because old people do not adopt the same
strategies as the younger ones in requesting.
First, when the subjects
address older people, the percentage of the mood
derivable is: 16,67 %, want statements: 1,67 %, suggestory formulae: 20 %, query
preparatories: 48,33 %and hints percentage is: 13,33 %.These results show that the
most frequently used strategies when requesting older are indirect strategies, and
the most dominant strategy is the query preparatory .It is important to note that
94
speaking to an older person in Arabic culture requires a high degree of politeness,
and this is why indirect strategies are employed more.
Second, when participants address
younger people, the request strategies
found are: mood derivable with: 56,67%, want statements: 5 %, query preparatory:
18,33 %, suggestory formulae: 13,33 % and the percentage of hints: 6,67 %.
As shown in the percentages, when addressing someone who is younger than them,
subjects show a preference for more direct strategies, that is to say the mood
derivable is the dominant one.
At last, when the interactants are from the same age group, the participants use
different strategies with different percentage. They use direct strategies by means of
mood derivable 43,33 % and want statements 6,67 %, and they use indirect
strategies by means of query preparatory 15 %, suggestory formulae 23,33 % and
hints 11,66 %.
Request strategies
Younger to older
Older to younger
Equal to equal
Mood derivable
10
16,67 %
34
56,67%
26
43,33 %
Want statements
1
1,67 %
3
5%
4
6,67 %
12
20 %
8
13,33 %
14
23,33 %
Query prepartory
29
48,33 %
11
18,33 %
9
15 %
Strong hints
8
13,33 %
4
6,67 %
7
11,66 %
Suggestory
formulae
Table 3.6: Distribution of request strategies in situation 3
95
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Suggestory formulae
Younger to older
Query prepartory
Older to younger
Equal to equal
Fig 3.5: Request strategies in situation 3
Examples of request strategies used in situation three:
From young to old:
   : ? (mood derivable)
    : ? (query preparatory)
:     : ? (suggestory formulae)
:     : ? (hints).
From older to younger:
 :  : ? (mood derivable)
  I :  : ? (query preparatory)
D)Situation four:
-Request from a friend:
96
Strong hints
From figure (3.6) below, it is revealed that the percentage of mood derivable is
50 %, Want statements 15 %, Suggestory formulae 8,33 % and Query preparatory
26,67 %. These results show that asking for help from a friend is an act with a low
degree of imposition and implies directness. Most respondents have chosen the
mood derivable strategy to address their friends, thus, they tend to adopt direct ways
since the request has no cost and the social distance is closer and the request is not
of high rank of imposition. There is an implicit cultural guarantee of no fear to lose
the face in requesting directly from a friend
Indirect strategies are also noticed, by means of suggestory formulae and query
preparatory.
Request strategies
friend
Mood derivable
30
50 %
Want statements
9
15 %
Suggestory formulae
5
8,33 %
Query prepartory
16
26,67 %
Table 3.7: Request strategies in friend-to-friend interaction
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Suggestory formulae
Query prepartory
friend
Fig.3.6: Requests strategies in friend-to-friend interaction
-Request from a neighbour:
97
From figure 3.7, the findings show that 43,33 % of the total have used the
mood derivable strategy, Want statements 6.67 %, Suggestory formulae 15 %, and
query preparatory 35 %.
Respondents favoured both the indirect and direct strategies to ask for help from
their neighbours. Since the act is not imposing on the addressees, direct strategies
can be used although the relationship between the interactants is a somewhat
distant.
Request strategies
neighbour
Mood derivable
26
43,33 %
Want statements
4
6.67 %
Suggestory formulae
9
15 %
Query prepartory
21
35 %
Table 3.8: Requests from a neighbour
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Suggestory formulae
Query prepartory
neighbour
Fig. 3.7 : Request from a neighbour
-Request from a brother:
From figure 3.8, the results show that the percentage of mood derivable is
71,67 %, Want statements 23,33 %, and Query preparatory 5 %.
98
There is a tendency from respondents to adopt direct strategies more when the
interaction is between brothers. As seen before, both the social distance and the
degree of imposition of the request influence the use of strategies, so directness is
preferred in this case more than indirectness.
Request strategies
brother
Mood derivable
43
71,67 %
Want statements
14
23,33 %
Query prepartory
3
5%
Table 3.9: Request strategies used between brothers
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
Query prepartory
brother
Fig. 3.8: Request strategies used between brothers
99
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want statements
friend
Suggestory formulae
brother
Query prepartory
neighbour
Fig 3.9: Request strategies used among the three categories
E)Situation five:
Asking a priest (Imam) to answer was often conveyed by query preparatory
containing reference to preparatory conditions (e.g., ability, willingness) as
conventionalized in the Arabic language. Conventionally indirect strategies are
found across this situation while instances of directness were less frequently
observed.
The subjects favoured indirect strategies to be more formal and polite. It is
important to note that the Imam in Arabic is given high authority; therefore the
situation requires a high degree of politeness.
Request strategies
Request from Imam
Mood derivable
14
23,34 %
Want statements
9
15 %
Suggestory formulae
5
8,33 %
Query prepartory
23
38,33 %
Strong hints
9
15 %
Table 3.10 : Request strategies used in requesting the priest
100
Request from Imam
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mood derivable
Want
statements
Suggestory
formulae
Query
prepartory
Strong hints
Request from Imam
Fig. 3.10: Request strategies used in requesting the priest
3.4. Analysis of politeness strategies in requests:
This study also investigates how Algerian people employ certain politeness
strategies when performing requests in their daily life. It examines variation in
politeness strategies used in Elfhoul, and how they differ according to the sex and
the age of the speakers in addition to the three social variables that influence the
performance of requests: power, distance and degree of imposition.
Politeness is a term used to refer to maintaining relationships and avoiding
conflicts, requests are especially helpful for a study of politeness strategies. We
often become more careful with our interlocutors using strategies to minimize
imposition. This section will discuss the four strategies put forward by Brown &
Levinson (1987) to save the face of interactants, used in the five situations.
Although there have been many approaches to analyze politeness, the most widely
used framework is that of the face saving view, which is associated with Brown &
Levinson’s 1987 book.
101
A) Situation one:
To borrow money from a friend:
From table 3.11, it is observed that the most dominant politeness strategy used
when subjects asked their friends for lending them money is the positive strategy.
The percentage of positive politeness is 65 %, the next one is negative politeness
with 23,33 %, and off record 11,67 %. These findings reveal that subjects did not
used the bald-on record strategy because lending money is among the requests that
have high degree of imposition on the hearer,
they could not ask for money
directly without polite markers or any softeners , so they have adopted the three
other strategies to reduce the imposition of the request. They tend to use the positive
strategies more because these strategies are favoured among friends and close
interactants, they imply a small social distance between the speakers and express
camaraderie.
As softeners, speakers also used formulaic utterances such as address terms:
“i:”, “o”, “”, “”. And other important
utterances such as: “ i:k”, “ ”, “ i:
”.These are very famous expressions Algerians utter in their everyday
conversations.
Politeness strategies
Request from a friend
Positive politeness
39
65 %
Negative politeness
14
23,33 %
Off- Record
7
11,67 %
Table 3.11:Politeness strategies used between friends
102
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Off- Record
Request from a friend
Fig.3.11: politeness strategies between friends
To borrow money from a neighbour:
From figure 3.12 it is noticed that the most used strategies between neighbours
are the positive and the negative strategies, with 30 % of positive politeness,
53,33% of negative politeness and 8,33 % of the off record strategies.
Participants prefer to adopt high degrees of politeness when addressing their
neighbours, because the neighbour in Arabic culture is privileged and respected to
the extent that some respondents (five) have stated they could never ask their
neighbours to lend them money, this is because the great respect that is shown to
this category of people and the social distance existing, they could not impose on
them, they prefer to be silent and thus adopting the "do not do the FTA" strategy.
On the other hand, the ones who responded preferred the negative strategies most in
this case using utterances like: “”, “  ”, and
apologizing : "sm".
As address forms, subjects used the term “” to soften the request.
103
Politeness strategies
Request from a neighbour
Positive politeness
18
30 %
Negative politeness
32
53,33 %
Off- Record
5
8,33 %
Do not do FTA
5
8.34 %
Table 3.12: Politeness strategies between neighbours
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Off- Record
Do not do FTA
Request from a neighbour
Fig 3.12: politeness strategies between neighbours
To borrow money from a brother:
It is observed that the main strategy used between brothers in this situation is
the positive one. 68,34 % have chosen or adopted positive politeness, 10 % negative
politeness, 18,33 %bald on record and 3,33 %off record.
These findings mean that subjects when asking their brothers to lend them money,
most of them did not ask baldly(because asking for money is a heavy request) i.e,
only 11 respondents who used the bald-on record strategy for example saying
“ ” “lend me money”. Instead, they preferred to be more
polite using the positive strategy by saying for example:” 
””my brother, lend me money”. On the other hand, negative politeness also
took place in this case, because of the high degree of imposition of the request; this
strategy can be used between brothers.
104
According to Brown and Levinson, the motive behind politeness strategies is to
avoid damaging both our own face and the face of the other person in interactions.
The desire to avoid this face damage is realized by our avoidance of the simplest
and most direct options when we choose what we say. In this situation (borrowing
money) since the request is of high degree of imposition, the subjects have avoided
to make direct utterances even from their brothers and close friends. Instead, they
have favoured the use of both the positive and the negative strategies because these
two are redressive actions, defined by Brown and Levinson (1987:70) as those*
which “attempt to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in
such a way…that indicates clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired”.
(quoted in the use of politeness in taboo)
Politeness strategies
Request from a brother
Positive politeness
41
68,34 %
Negative politeness
6
10 %
Bald-on Record
11
18,33 %
Off- Record
2
3,33 %
Table 3.13: politeness strategies between brothers
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Bald-on Record
Request from a brother
105
Off- Record
Fig. 3.13: politeness strategies between brothers
B) Situation two:
A lot of observations could be obtained from the table. The most dominant
strategy used to ask others to close the window in a polite way in this situation
(asking someone to close the window in a bus) is the positive politeness.
In male- male interaction, 64,29 % of the sample have favoured the positive
politeness; 17,86 % used negative politeness, 7,14 % used the bald- on record
strategy and 10,71 % have answered with off record strategies. Although the
participants do not know each other in a bus the most used strategy is the positive to
establish a positive relationship, and the need of the speaker would be liked and
understood.
In male-female interaction, the percentage of positive politeness is 42,86 %,
negative politeness 28,57 % and off record 3,57 %
In female- female
interaction, the percentage of positive politeness is 62,50 %,
negative politeness 6,25 %,bald on record 12,50 % and off record 18,75 % %.
In female- male interaction, the percentage of positive politeness is 78,13 %,
negative politeness 15,63 %, and off record 6,25 %.
From these results, it is revealed that the gender of the interactants is a crucial
factor in determining the type of politeness strategies in the Algerian context. When
the interaction occurs between speakers of the same sex, no much attention is paid
to the most formal strategies that is to say when a male addresses another male,
direct requests by means of positive politeness and bald-on record are used more
than the indirect ones, and the same thing in female to female interaction. This does
not mean that they are less polite but to establish relationships and to make their
requests accepted and understood.
On the other hand, when the interaction is between males and females, much
attention is paid to the feelings of the other party that is to say when a male
addresses a female, the positive and the negative strategies are considered to make
the request less imposing or infringing. The bald on record strategy is avoided and
not used in this case because speaking to a woman baldly would create conflict and
may be interpreted as impolite, and it is the case in female-male interaction.
106
Females are given high degrees of politeness to the extent that 25% of the male
respondents have claimed that they could not ask women to close the window
because of the high respect felt towards women. They prefer to adopt Brown and
Levinson's fifth strategy "do not do the FTA".
Politeness
Male to male
strategies
Positive
Male to
Female to
Female to
female
female
male
18
64,29 % 12
42,86 %
20
62,50 %
25
78,13 %
5
17,86 %
8
28,57 %
2
6,25 %
5
15,63 %
Bald-on Record
2
7,14 %
0
0%
4
12,50 %
0
0%
Off- Record
3
10,71 %
1
3,57 %
6
18,75 %
2
6,25 %
Do not do FTA
0
0%
7
25 %
0
0%
0
0%
politeness
Negative
politeness
Table 3.14: politeness strategies used according to gender
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Male to male
Negative
politeness
Bald-on Record
Male to female
Off- Record
Female to female
Do not do FTA
Female to male
Fig. 3.14: politeness strategies used according to gender
C) Situation three:
107
When requests are addressed to elders, the percentage of positive politeness is
38,33 %, negative politeness 48,33 % and the percentage of off record strategies
is 13,34 %.
When requests are addressed to youngers, the percentage of positive politeness is 65
%, negative politeness 18,33 %, bald-on record 10 % and off record politeness 6,67
%.
When requests are between interactants of the same age, the percentage of positive
politeness is 71,67 % , negative politeness 15 %, bald-on record 1,67 % and off
record politeness 11,66 % .
The results show that the age of interactants is very important in determining the
types of politeness strategies. When addressing elders, participants are careful in
producing utterances in requesting. They have chosen the negative and the positive
ways to perform their requests from people who are older than them. Older people
are respected and are seen superiors, which led to the avoidance of directeness and
bald-on-record strategies. None of the respondents have asked elders baldly, it is
impolite to address them alike. Instead, they have redressed the threat with negative
politeness that respects the hearer’s negative face which is the need to be
independent and have freedom of action; and positive politeness to make the act
acceptable. As softeners, two address terms are used:  "a term that is said
to someone who is a pilgrim"  "uncle".
Off record strategies are also used here with 13,34 %, they are used to satisfy
negative face to a greater degree than using a negative politeness strategy.
On the other hand, when the request is addressed to people who are younger,
subjects prefer to adopt the positive politeness. This strategy is common to address
younger individuals using softeners such as address terms like: “”:”my
son”, “:” and politeness formulas like:” ”, “
:”,  ” all these expressions may have the same meaning
which is: ”God bless you” and are uttered by older people more than the younger
ones. Negative politeness is also used here in addition to the use of bald-on-record
strategies which are the utterances that are done directly, and they are also common
in addressing the younger persons.
108
When requests are between interactants of the same age, it is found that positive
politeness strategies are dominant, in addition to the negative and off-record
strategies that took place in the situation.
Politeness
Younger to older
strategies
Older to younger
Equal to equal
Positive politeness
23
38,33 %
39
65 %
43
71,67 %
Negative politeness
29
48,33 %
11
18,33 %
9
15 %
Bald-on Record
0
0%
6
10 %
1
1,67 %
Off- Record
8
13,34 %
4
6,67 %
7
11,66 %
Table 3.15: politeness strategies used according to age.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Younger to older
Bald-on Record
Older to younger
Off- Record
Equal to equal
Fig.3.15: politeness strategies according to age.
D) Situation four:
Asking a friend for help:
Table 3.16 shows that when asking a friend for help i.e, to carry with you a
heavy box , subjects tend to use the positive strategy with high statistical level that
109
is to say 48,33 % of the sample have selected this type. The percentage of negative
strategies is 26,67 %, bald-on-record 25 % . Since requesting for help in this
situation belongs to the acts that possess a low rank of imposition not as the request
of lending money, respondents may not adopt indirect ways to perform the request
and they may not feel imposing on the hearers with this act. They have preferred the
positive and the negative, and the bald-on-record strategies because the social
distance between them is closer and the act is simple; none of them have used offrecord strategies due to the close social distance and the rank of the request.
Politeness strategies
Request from a friend
Positive politeness
29
48,33 %
Negative politeness
16
26,67 %
Bald-on Record
15
25 %
Table 3.16: politeness strategies used between friends.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Bald-on Record
Request from a friend
Fig.3.16: politeness strategies used between friends.
Asking a neighbour for help:
110
From table 3.17
, it is revealed that the percentage of positive politeness is
46,67 %, negative politeness is 35 % and bald-on-record 18,33 %.
There is a tendency towards the positive and the negative strategies by the subjects
to address neighbours, this is because the social relationship between neighbours is
distant and guards some respect. But bald-on-record strategies occurred too in data
may be this is due to the type of the request which is of a lower degree of
imposition and it does not entail much imposition. Here too, off-record strategies
are not used due also to the rank of imposition.
Politeness strategies
Request from a neighbour
Positive politeness
28
46,67 %
Negative politeness
21
35 %
Bald-on Record
11
18,33 %
Table 3.17: politeness strategies used between neighbours.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Bald-on Record
Request from a neighbour
Figure 3.17: politeness strategies between neighbours
Asking a brother for help:
111
From table 3.18 , subjects tend to use the bald-on-record strategy with high
statistical level that is to say; 78,33 % of the total have adopted this direct strategy.
Positive politeness with 16,67 % and negative politeness 5 %.
It is observed from our data that most respondents use bald-on-record strategy to
ask their brothers for help, they have used the most direct ways and the less formal
utterances and this is due to the closest relationship between brothers and which
does not require any formality and indirectness. Positive and negative strategies are
also observed here with a low statistical level.
Politeness strategies
Request from a brother
Positive politeness
10
16,67 %
Negative politeness
3
5%
Bald-on Record
47
78,33 %
Table 3.18: politeness strategies between brothers.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Bald-on Record
Request from a brother
Figure 3.18: politeness strategies between brothers.
E) Situation five:
112
Nothing, perhaps, is more important to the Arab than good manners and
“”:”shame”. “” is a very expressive word which means not only
respect, but the maintenance of that position to which respect is due. For the Arabs,
it is the most important thing in life, and among the persons that are shown great
respect in Arabic culture is the Imam.
From table 3.19 , the findings show that the percentage of positive politeness is
46,67 %, negative politeness 38,33 % and off-record 15 %.
Participants tend to use indirect strategies more than the direct ones when
performing requests from the Imam. It is polite to be formal and indirect in this
situation.
Politeness strategies
Request from Imam
Positive politeness
28
46,67 %
Negative politeness
23
38,33 %
Off- Record
9
15 %
Table 3.19:politeness strategies used in requesting the priest
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Positive politeness
Negative politeness
Off- Record
Request from Imam
Figure 3.19: politeness strategies used in requesting the priest.
113
In this situation, it can be observed that indirect strategies were modified and
accompanied with formulaic utterances such as address terms that express respect
and deference between interlocutors such as : "teacher"; or :
"wise man". As a result, it could be noticed that people in higher positions in terms
of power and education like in this case of the priest, people are careful in their
choice of utterances; they always try to be indirect.
3.5. Conclusion:
In this chapter, the notion of polite request strategies among Elfhoul Arabic
speakers who consist of friends and neighbours was examined. This chapter is
based on two scales or phases. The first one is about Blum-Kulka's request
strategies, and the second is about Brown and Levinson politeness strategies. It was
found that conventionally indirectness, mostly realized by means of query
preparatory, and directness realized by means of, mood derivable, want statements,
hedge performatives, performative, and obligation statements. Also nonconventionally indirectness was found in some situations with low frequency and
percentage by means of hints.
In the second phase, Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies are discussed.
It was revealed that there is a great tendency towards the positive strategies,
although the other strategies were also employed. This depends on the relationships
between the interactants.
114
General Conclusions:
At the outset of our attempt in this dissertation, we may say that we are still a
long way from understanding how speakers mitigate their speech forms to express
politeness in specific speech events despite the various hypotheses and theories
which do indeed propose logical and experimental analysis. In fact, language is a
means of communicating ideas, emotions and establishing social relationships. And
language systems have within them the means of conveying politeness. So, this last
phenomenon cannot be seen outside of verbal behaviour.
This study examines the notion of politeness strategies in the speech act of
requests, among Algerian speakers in particular speakers of Elfhoul speech
community. Three questions are raised; the first one is whether Brown and
Levinson's politeness strategies can be applied in this Algerian society, and on the
other hand, whether Blum-Kulka's request patterns are also adopted. The second
and the third ones are related to age and gender and their effect on politeness
strategies. Thus, this dissertation tries to answer these questions and to see whether
the findings confirm the hypotheses suggested.
According to the findings of this study, in an answer to the first question, a
great deal of similarities can be demonstrated in the expression of politeness
between the languages mentioned in Brown and Levinson's work. It is found the
five types of strategies are followed by speakers of the speech community dealt
with; they are adopted according to the context and situation.
Concerning Blum-kulak's request strategies, it is found that they really take
part in this community, conventional indirectness, mostly realized by means of
query preparatory and hints, and directness by means of mood derivable and
want/need statements. Thus, it is found that directness is realized by means of
115
positive and bald-on-record strategies, and indirectness by means of negative and
off-record strategies.
Age and gender also play important roles in the performance of requests.
Indirectness is used to address old people due to the respect, and directness is used
by old people to interact with the young ones.
When the interaction is between males or females, that is to say, the same sex, there
is a great tendency towards directness and positive strategies without paying much
attention to indirectness. Whereas, when the interaction is between males and
females, most of the time indirectness is adopted, this is due to the respect
exchanged between the two sexes.
Elfhoul Arabic speakers employment of politeness strategies varies according
to the given contexts and situations. In their interactions with their brothers, there is
a tendency towards high levels of directness without the fear of losing face. This is
because the relation is closer. But when the degree of imposition of the request is
high like in the situation of borrowing money, directness is linked with softeners
like :” ”.
On the other hand, to interact with friends, Elfhoul speakers exchange between the
direct and indirect strategies with softeners, and thus, between positive and negative
strategies.
It appears that the qualitative and quantitative analysis conducted in this
research reveal cross-cultural speech act realization patterns in an Arabic dialect,
because the majority of the previous studies have focused on Western languages
and dialects. We need to do more work to understand when and why such request
strategies are used and what variables influence their use. It seems in the data
examined that the choice of certain request strategies and politeness strategies
seems to be related to different variables such as: gender, age, the relationship
between the interactants and the rank of imposition of the act.
The findings show that there is a general tendency in Algerian Arabic towards
higher levels of directness and the positive politeness. The Algerian speakers
employed high levels of directness without the fear of losing "face" may be due to
the fact that it is the expected behaviour in the situations of the questionnaire
116
It is clear that positive politeness strategy is dominant in all situations except in the
last one, in which the interaction is addressed to the Imam where the negative and
off-record strategies are used more.
Finally, the current study proves that polite request strategies and politeness
strategies differ from a culture to another. Speakers in Elfhoul used direct strategies
with softeners to mitigate their requests. Direct strategies are considered as
solidarity politeness strategies because they imply that the speaker assumes only a
small social distance between him/herself and the interlocutor.
Indeed, Cross-cultural pragmatics (CCP) has done much to develop our
understanding of speech acts across cultures giving importance to both the
universality of certain language function (such as promising, requesting, etc) and
the cultural dimensions. However researchers of Cross-cultural pragmatics see that
there is a weakness since that the results tend to be interpreted without identification
of cultural meaning (Davis and Henz, 1998).
Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 24) suggest that “to understand how international styles
form a part of a culture’s ethos and determine the meanings attached to
communication, we would need to enrich our studies of observed behaviour by
studies of perception of linguistic behaviour that offer similar choices of directness
levels, for example, carry culturally, differentiated meaning for members of
different cultures.
The cross-cultural study of speech acts is very crucial to the understanding of the
communication all over the world. In the field of cultural research, it is realized that
face- threatening acts are particularly important to study because they are the source
of so many cross-cultural miscommunications.
Some limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research
should be mentioned. First, the sample size is not big to generalize the findings to
all Elfhoul Arabic speakers and Algerian speakers, thus more subjects from
different regions can provide better samples.
117
Second, as for data elicitation method, only the DCT was applied in this study.
In fact, observations and recordings can help to get more actual data.
Third, both the speaker and the hearer are required in communication. This
study focuses on the speaker's realization of request rather than the hearer, but it
would be better if both sides are discussed, the speaker's production and the hearer's
response.
Finally, to better understand Elfhoul speech community speech acts
performance, other types of speech acts need to be investigated in the future works.
Appendix: Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
118
Sex:
Age:
Please read the following descriptions of situations and write what you would say in
each situation using your own dialect.
Situation one:
You need a sum of money, how will ask these people to lend it to you?
Your neighbour
Your friend
Your brother
Situation two:
You are in a bus and the weather is cold, you want someone sitting behind the
window to close it, how will you ask for it from these people?
A man
A woman
Situation three:
You want to visit a friend but you do not know his or her address, how will you
ask these people for the address?
Someone younger than you.
Someone the same age as you
Someone older than you
Situation four:
You want to carry a heavy box to your home, how will you ask for help from?
Your neighbour
Your friend
Your brother
Situation five:
You have got a set of questions concerning religious matters, how will you ask the
priest “Imam” of your region to answer them for you?
119
‫)‪Appendix: DCT Questionnaire (Arabic version‬‬
‫الجنس‪................... :‬‬
‫السن‪...................... :‬‬
‫من فضلك اقرأ األوصاف التالية لمواقف قد تحدث لك‪ .‬ماذا ستقول في كل موقف من المواقف التالية‬
‫مستخدما لهجتك و ليس الفصحى‪.‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫تحتاج إلى مبلغ من المال‪ ،‬كيف ستطلبه من‪:‬‬
‫صديقك‪................................................................................................ :‬‬
‫جارك‪................................................................................................. :‬‬
‫أخيك‪...................................................................................................:‬‬
‫‪ .2‬أنت راكب في حافلة‪ ،‬تريد من شخص جالس بجوار نافذة مفتوحة أن يغلقها‪ ،‬كيف ستطلب منه‬
‫ذلك؟‬
‫‪ ‬هذا الشخص رجل‪................................................................................. :‬‬
‫‪ ‬هذا الشخص امرأة‪................................................................................. :‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫تلقيت دعوة من شخص يسكن في منطقة مجاورة للمنطقة التي تسكن فيها‪ ،‬كيف تسأل عن‬
‫عنوان منزله‪.‬‬
‫من شخص أكبر منك ‪.............................................................................‬‬
‫من شخص بنفس عمرك ‪..........................................................................‬‬
‫من شخص أصغر منك‪........................................................................... :‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫تريد من شخص ما أن يحمل معك صندوقا ثقيال‪ ،‬كيف ستطلب منه إن كان‪:‬‬
‫صديقا‪.........................................................................................:‬‬
‫جارا‪........................................................................................ :‬‬
‫أخا‪................................................................................................. :‬‬
‫‪ ‬تريد من إمام منطقتك أن يجيبك عن بعض األسئلة الدينية فكيف ستطلب منه ذلك؟‬
‫‪......................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪Bibliography:‬‬
‫‪120‬‬
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Calderon
Press.
Austin, J.L. (1976), How to do things with words, 2nd edition. Oxford, etc.: Oxford
University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Bayraktaroglu. A & Sifianou. M.(2001). Linguistic politeness across boundaries:
the case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beeching, K. (2002) Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural
pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness some universals in language use.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P./Levinson, S. (1978), Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In: Goody, E.N. (ed.) (1978), Questions and politeness: Strategies in
social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 56-289.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2"d). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Duranti,A. (2007). A companion to linguistic anthropology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Felix-Brasdefer, C. J.(2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: a
contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Ferguson, C. A. & Huebner .T (1996). Sociolinguistic perspectives: papers on
language in society, 1959-1994. Oxford University Press US.
Ferguson,C.A, Belnap.R.K & Haeri N. (1997). Structuralist studies in Arabic
linguistics: Charles A. Ferguson's papers, 1954-1994. BRILL.
Fukushima, S.(2002). Requests and culture: politeness in British English and
Japanese. P. Lang.
121
Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Peter Cole (eds) Syntax and
Semantics.
Vol. 3, Pp 41-58.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women Men and Politeness. London: Longman
Jucker,H, Fritz,G &Lesbsanft,F. (1999). Historical dialogue analysis. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kachru,Y&Smith,L. (2008). Cultures, contexts and world Englishes. Routledge.
Labov,W.(1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania.
Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, R.T & Ide,S.(2005). Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leech, G . (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locher.M.A.(2004). Power and politeness in action: disagreements in oral
communication. Walter de Gruyter.
Mey, J. (1998). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Elsevier.
Mey, L J. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Elsevier Science &
Technology. Second edition.
Mill, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Morris,C. (1937). Logical positivism, Pragatism, and Scientific Empiricism.Paris.
Paltridge,B (2006). Discourse analysis: an introduction. Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Reiter, Rosina (2000). 'Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive
study of requests and Apologies. John Benjamins publishing company. Amsterdam/
Philadephia
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P.Cole, & J. l. Morgan (Eds.). MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
122
Searle, J.R. (1969), Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sifianou, M. (2000). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece : a crosscultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
The English Theophrastus: or, The manners of the age.(1991 (1702). Being the
modern characters of the court, the town, and the city. Printed for W. Turner.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, J. et al., (2005). Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and
practice. Mouton de Gruyter New York.
Journals and theses:
Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian
English. Multilingua, 8 (1), 57–80.
Akbari, Z. (2002, May). The realization of politeness principles in Persian. Isfahan
University, Iran.
Al-Ammar, M.(2000). The linguistic Strategies and Realizations of Request
Behaviour in Spoken English and Arabic among Saudi Female English Majors at
Riyad College of Arts: unpublished M.A. thesis. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Alfattah,M.(2009). Politeness strategies in Yemeni requests. B.K. Ravindranath,
Ph.D.
Al-Shalawi,H. (1997). Refusal Strategies in Saudi and American Culture.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Michigan: Michigan University.
Becker, J. (1982) “Children’s Strategic Use of Requests to Mark and Manipulate
Social Status”. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development, Vol. 2: Language,
Thought and Culture, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1-35.
Billmyer, K. and Varghese, M. (2000). “Investigating instrument-based pragmatic
variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests”. Applied Linguistics,
4,517-552.
123
Bouhadiba, F. (1998). Continuum linguistique ou alternance de codes? Essai d’analyse
dynamique des faits: Etat des lieux. Cahiers de Linguistique et Didactique (GRLDLD) N°
1, Octobre 1998 : 1-11. I.L.E. Oran, Algérie.
Davis, K. A. and R. C. Henze (1998). ‘Applying ethnographic perspectives to issues in
cross-cultural pragmatics’. Journal of Pragmatics 30(3), 399-419.
Dendane,Z.(1993). Socioliguistic variation in an urban context: the Case of
Tlemcen Speech Community. Unpublished magister dissertation ,Oran university.
Dendane,Z (2007). Sociolinguistic Variation and Attitudes towards Language
Behaviour : The Case of Tlemcen Arabic. Oran University. Unpublished Ph thesis,
under the supervision of Prof.F.Bouhadiba.
El Samaty, M. (2005). “Helping foreign language learners become pragmatically
competent”. pp. 341- 351. Proceedings of the 10th TESOL Arabia Conference.
El-Shazly, A. (1993). Requesting Strategies in American English, Egyptian Arabic
and English as spoken by Egyptian second language learners. Unpublished M.A.
thesis. Cairo:American University.
Fraser, B. (1990), “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 2, 219-36.
Fraser, B./Nolen, W. (1981), “The association of deference with linguistic form”.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, 93-109.
Hill, B. et. al (1986). “Universals of linguistic politeness, Quantitative Evidence
from Japanese and American English”, Journal of Pragmatics 10 (1986) 347-371
North Holland.
Ho, C. (2007). Making a Chinese request: the case of Junior high school students in
Taiwan. National Cheng Kung university.
Hong, W. (1996). “An empirical study of Chinese request strategies”. In Int. L.J.
Soc. Lang. 122(1996),. 127- 138.
Jalilifar, A. (2009) Request Strategies: Cross-Sectional Study of Iranian EFL
Learners and Australian Native Speakers. English language teaching 2(1): 46-61.
Kasper, G. (1990), “Linguistic politeness: Current research issues”. Journal of
Pragmatics 14, 2, 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1994), “Politeness”. In: Asher, R.E. (ed.)/Simpson, J.M.Y.
(coordinating ed.) (1994), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 6.
Oxford: Pergamon: 3206-11.
124
Kingwell, M. (1993). “Is it Rational to be Polite”? Journal of Philosophy, 90 (8),
387–404.
Koike, Dale April.(1989). “Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition:
Speech Acts in Interlanguage.” The Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 279–89.
Lee, C. (2004). “Written requests in e-mails sent by adult Chinese learners of
English”. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(1), 58-72.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988), “Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese”. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 4, 403-26.
Meier, A. (1995). “Defining politeness: Universality in appropriateness”. Language
Sciences, 17, 345-365.
Meier, A.J. (1995b). “Passages of Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 24 (4): 381392.
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A.(1991). “The Learning of Complex Speech Behaviour”
in TESL Canada Journal, 7:47-56.
Rizk, S.: (2003), "Why say NO! when you refuse?" in
Conference Proceedings, 7.
TESOL Arabia 2002
Romanello,E. (2010). The use of Italian and dialect as a politeness strategy. Stony
Brook University.
Sasaki, M. (1998). “Investigating EFL students' production of speech acts: a comparison of
production questionnaires and role plays” . Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Hymes, D. (1962). “The ethnography of speaking”. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant
(Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 15-53). Washington DC:
Anthropological Society of Washington.
Salmani-Nodushan, M.A. (1995). A socio-pragmatic comparative study of
ostensible invitations in English and Farsi. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of
Isfahan.
Scarcella, R. and Brunk , J. (1981). “On Speaking politely in a Second Language”.
In J. Walters and J.A. Fishman (Eds). “The sociolinguistics of deference and
politeness”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. London: Mouton
Publishers.
125
Suh, J. S. (1999). “Pragmatic description of politeness in requests by Korean
learners of English as a second language”. IRAL, 37(3), 195-213.
Thomas, J. (1983). “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure”: Applied Linguistics, 4/12,
92-112.
Umar, A. (2004) “Request Strategies as Used by Advanced Arab Learners”. Journal
of Educational & Social Sciences & Humanities, 16 (1),42-87.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1985) “Different cultures, different languages, different speech
acts”: Journal of pragmatics 9 (1985). 145-178. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
North Holland, Amsterdam.
Wolfson, N. (1986). “Research methodology and the question of validity”in TESOL
Quarterly 20(4), 689-699.
Yaghoobi,B. (2002). A cross-linguistic study of requestive speech acts in email
communication. The university of Leeds.
Ferguson, C. A. 1976. "The Structure and Use of Politeness Formulas." Language
in Society. 5(2): 137 - 151.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982), “Learning how to say what you mean in a second language:
A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second
language”. Applied Linguistics 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987), “Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or
different?” Journal of Pragmatics 11, 1, 131-46.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1983), “Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second
language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English”. In: Wolfson, N./Judd, E.
(eds.) (1983), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House: 36-55.
Felix-Brasdefer, C. J. (2005). “Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests”. In
D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium (pp. 66-78). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
126
Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social
Interaction." Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3),
213-231. Reprinted in Goffman (2005, pp. 5–46).
Selinker, L. (1972), “Interlanguage”. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
10, 209-241.
127
:‫الملخص‬
‫هذه دراسة لغوية تبحث في استراتيجيات الطلب بلطف وأساليب الخطاب التي يستخدمها الناطقون‬
. ‫األصليون باللهجة الجزائرية بالتحديد لهجة الفحول‬
‫استخدمت الباحثة اختبار تكملة المحادثة في خمسة مواقف و اختارت عيّنة تتكون من اصدقاء و جيران‬
‫ شخصا لمعرفة استراتيجيات الطلب وأساليب الخطاب التي يستعملها كل شخص من العينة‬06‫تضمنت‬
.‫المختارة في كل موقف‬
‫وجدت أن االستراتيجيات تختلف من موقف إلى موقف آخر على حسب العالقة الرابطة بين األشخاص‬
‫ أظهرت‬.‫ نوعية الطلب و المكانة االجتماعية لكل فرد باإلضافة إلى سن و جنس هؤالء األشخاص‬،
.‫النتائج أيضا أن هناك ميال الستخدام األساليب المباشرة االيجابية أكثر من غير المباشرة السلبية‬
: ‫الكلمات المفتاحية‬
‫ نوعية‬،‫ العالقة بين األشخاص‬،‫ اختبار تكملة المحادثة‬،‫ أساليب الخطاب‬،‫إستراتيجيات الطلب بلطف‬
‫ المكانة االجتماعية‬،‫الطلب‬
Resumé de l’étude :
Cette recherche est une étude sociolinguistique basée sur les différentes stratégies de
politesse utilisées dans les demandes dans le dialecte Algérien, notamment celui de la
commune d’El-fhoul.
La méthode suivie dans cette étude est un questionnaire « test de complétion de discours »
distribué à soixante participants parmi des amis et des voisins qui écrivent ce qu’ils disent
dans cinq situations. Les résultats ont prouvé que les stratégies changent d’une situation à
l’autre selon le rapport entre les personnes, la qualité de la demande et la situation sociale
de chacun, en plus selon l’age et le sexe de chaque individu. Les résultats ont montré aussi
qu’il y a une tendance vers les stratégies directes plus que celles qui sont indirectes.
Mots clés :
Demandes, qualité de la demande, rapport, situation sociale, stratégies de politesse, test de
complétion de discours.
Summary:
This study is a sociolinguistic investigation into politeness strategies used in the
performance of the requesting speech act in Elfhoul speech community.
The instrument used is the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) where sixty participants
among friends and neighbours who are asked to write what they say in the five situations
using their own dialect. The findings show that the use of strategies differs from one
situation to another according to the power of interactants, the social distance and the
degree of imposition of the request. Results also reveal that the there is a preference
towards the use of directness more than indirectness.
Key words:
Degree of imposition, Discourse Completion Test, politeness strategies, power, request,
social distance.
128